It is simple and can be summarised in one line. Bob McCoskrie was way too complicated when he outlined Family Forst’s support for polygamy.
This is it.
“Anyone stupid enough to want more than one mother in law deserves all they can get.” Read more »
Looks like Family First is making a play for “Bigger” families with their claim that ”there’s a more justified argument for polygamy than for same-sex marriage – as a natural institution.”
Bob McCoskrie and other who oppose marriage equality always run out the “but, but, but….gay marriage will lead to polygamy” line. My smart arsed line is always the same…so what…if you support families then surely you support really BIG families…and any bloke who wants more than one mother in law is doing us all a favour.
However, jokes aside…let’s look at history…Craig Young has, at GayNZ:
Family First is once more ruminating hypocritically about the alleged “relationship” between same-sex monogamous marriage and polygamy. It’s time someone told Mr McCoskrie that some of us are aware of Christianity’s own polygamist past.
It goes all the way back to the sixteenth century and Martin Luther, the very founder of Protestant Christianity himself- and an advocate of polygamy. What?!! Yes, that is correct. Luther believed that polygamous marriages were preferable to extramarital sex (or ‘fornication’) or adultery. Indeed, Luther and Phillip Melancthon, another early Lutheran theologian and pivotal figure, advocated that Phillip, Landgrave of Hesse (a German principality within the Holy Roman Empire) covertly and bigamously marry two women- Christine of Saxony, an invalid and alcoholic, and one of her ladies-in-waiting, Margarethe van der Saale. However, it doesn’t end there. Instead of divorcing Catherine of Aragon, his first wife, Melanchthon also advised future serial monogamist Henry VIII to bigamously marry Anne Boleyn. Henry didn’t take his advice, divorced Catherine instead and monogamously remarried Anne, future mother of Elizabeth I of England. Read more »
The other day Family First and Bob McCoskrie made claims that if we allowed ‘gay marriage’ then the next thing that would be lobbied for would be polygamy and polyamorous relationships.
They claim this is the slippery slope, despite the slippery slope not existing anywhere in the world.
The MP behind a law change to legalise gay marriage has slammed the “dishonest” argument by opponents that her bill will pave the way to polygamous relationships.
Labour Party MP Louisa Wall said she was frustrated by the more extreme arguments against her bill, which had prompted her to release research showing that no country had legalised polygamous relationships after legalising gay marriage.
Ms Wall said the argument that allowing same-sex marriage would be a stepping stone to multiple partners was undermining an otherwise civilised and principled debate.
“Everyone has built an opposition based on a belief or a value … but for some to purposefully mislead not only the public, but to also scaremonger, is fundamentally dishonest,” she said.
It is fundamentally dishonest, because on this issue they are being fundamentally dishonest. The facts are plain. Read more »
Bob McCoskrie is running the old “gay marriage leads to polygamy” line…despite no evidence of it ever have done so in the world…anywhere.
Family First national director Bob McCoskrie says the push for same-sex marriage in New Zealand is a stepping-stone to legalising polygamy.
Mr McCoskrie said a new poll by Key Research that showed 53.9 per cent of respondents supported gay marriage was an indicator that fewer people were in favour of marriage reform compared to a year ago.
He said the number had dropped from 63 per cent in a May poll, as people “got past the slogan of “marriage equality’ and debated the real impact of redefining marriage”.
“There is absolutely no need to redefine marriage to provide legal recognition and protection for same-sex relationships,” he said.
Mitt Romney opposes marriage equality and refuses to let same sex couples have mothers in law, but his grandfather had multiple mothers in law:
It would be hard to think of two politicians more different than Dukakis and Romney. Dukakis is a short, unassuming (for a pol) ethnic American. Romney is a tall, self-confident dynastic WASP (or at least WASM), one of whose campaign flubs was to claim his father was an immigrant from Mexico. (George Romney was born in Mexico because his family had fled there to practice polygamy unmolested by big government and burdensome regulations.)
The NSW Upper house is backing same-sex marriage. It is astonishing some of the arguments against…with no foundation in fact or reason:
The NSW upper house has passed a motion calling on the federal government to allow gay marriage, despite a Liberal MP saying that change could lead to polygamy.
Greens MP Cate Faehrmann’s private members’ motion passed 22 votes to 16 in the Legislative Council, with both major parties allowing a conscience vote.
NSW has now joined Tasmania and the ACT in having a parliamentary chamber call for the 1961 commonwealth Marriage Act to be amended to allow same-sex marriage.
Shortly before the vote, Ms Faehrmann likened a ban on gay marriage to the 1950s laws prohibiting Aboriginal men from marrying white women.
During the debate, Labor MP Helen Westwood described being in a lesbian relationship and having eight grandchildren.
”There’s just no evidence that my children or my grandchildren have been disadvantaged by being raised in a same-sex relationship,” she told the chamber.
But Labor’s leader in the upper house, Luke Foley, who hails from the party’s left faction, said that as a practising Catholic he believed civil unions were more appropriate for gay couples than marriage.
”I do believe that homosexual relationships are different to a married relationship,” he said, adding a ”procreative relationship open to the possibility of children” was an ”essential feature of marriage”.
Liberal member Matthew Mason-Cox argued same-sex marriage could lead to polygamy.
”Indeed, if one was to take the notion of equality of marriage to its logical conclusion, then there would be no reason to stand in the way of polygamist marriages, or other variants,” he said.
”This is the so-called slippery slope in this debate which has manifested itself overseas in some jurisdictions where same-sex marriage has been allowed.”
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.
“Polygamy and polyamory have been added to the same-sex marriage debate in Australia because the ‘discrimination’ 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,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “At the moment, the New Zealand marriage law does discriminate against three or more people getting married, or a married person marrying another person.”
“If 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 – 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,” 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.
Rick Santorum can be pretty hateful too.
Comparing homosexuality to “man-on-dog” sex:
“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. … That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.” (AP interview, April 7, 2003)
There is no other way to look at it, the bloke who got married twice and convicted of bigamy still has two mothers in law. There will be no good to come of that:
On December 17 last year Rodney Peach married his partner in front of her family and friends, while still married to his unsuspecting wife of 28 years.
Two days later the 52-year-old south Auckland bigamist walked into the Howick police station and confessed to police what he had done.
Last month Peach pleaded guilty to bigamy and using a forged document, and today he escaped prison when he was sentenced at Manukau District Court to 120 hours’ community work and nine months supervision.
He told police that Ms Oeti knew of his marriage breakdown and that he had not left his wife for the legally required two years.
“The defendant stated that his marriage had been over in the eyes of God … ,” the police summary said.
“He explained that the circumstances of his problem as being due somewhat to the family pressure placed on Ms Oeti and her family’s religious convictions,” the summary said.
Who on earth would want two mothers in law.
