An argument against Gay Marriage

The Telegraph yesterday had a reasonable argument against gay marriage published. I don’t personally subscribe to it but it is worth a discussion:

Church and government have long been at loggerheads over marriage: was it the domain of the parson or the squire? The tussle between these authorities, as Ferdinand Mount reveals in The Subversive Family, spurred impatient young men and women to tie the knot on their own – often without a single witness, let alone the blessing of their parish priest. Even in Victorian times, marriage as a private deal continued among the working classes: religious authorities such as the Committee on Religion and Morals of the Free Church would throw their hands in the air at the live-and-let-live attitude of those who ignored their warnings of children born out of wedlock, marriages ending in separation, and widespread adultery.

Relationships are just as messy, and just as flimsy, today: 80 per cent of couples cohabit before marriage, leaving them vulnerable to legal and bureaucratic nightmares involving inheritance, “palimony”, and children’s visiting rights. Divorce, which ends almost half of marriages, can mark the beginning of a traumatic relationship with your former partner, as can separation.

These untidy permutations bring home an important fact: marriage is anything but natural. As Darwin didn’t dare say, marriage thwarts the masculine impulse toward promiscuity and the feminine self-interest in hooking up with the highest-status male. Left to our own devices, men and women would wander from relationship to relationship, having a child here, another one there, thinking of our own needs and satisfying our own desires. Marriage, at once divine and artificial, reins in our instincts and institutionalises our love. It requires collaboration, nurturing, a sense of duty and responsibility, self-sacrifice as well as the self-confidence to don billowing white tulle and waft down the aisle to Mendelssohn’s Wedding March.

It’s a tall order – so no wonder two grown-ups who commit to one another to the death need all the help they can get. That means both spiritual guidance and sustenance from religious authorities, and legal and fiscal support from secular ones. Sadly, this Government seems loath to hold out a hand. Tories were once stalwart supporters of traditional marriage; but this Prime Minister talks of making gay marriage legal and straight marriage costly. (Tax benefits are an incentive for couples, even with children, to live apart.) The one minister who champions heterosexual marriage, Iain Duncan Smith, has yet to see his proposal for a marriage tax break come into effect.

This is a terrible shame. Marriage may be a force for the good, but for some gay people, it has become a fortress they must storm. They argue that, in its present state, marriage discriminates and excludes. The ancient and much-loved edifice must be broken into – or simply broken.



THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Cobolt

    I’m sorry but I failed to see a valid argument in that article other than that marriage is a religious ideal.

    “Yet defending heterosexual marriage as an ideal is not simply about supporting
    the status quo. A gay couple may be equal to a straight one in the eyes of
    the law. But in the eyes of the Catholic Church, or evangelical
    Protestantism, or Islam, or most of Judaism? Marriage, for such communities
    (and even for many Anglicans), can join only man to woman. In fact, in many
    of these faiths, divorced men and women cannot aspire to marriage, either.
    The divorcee, like the homosexual, has fallen short of a spiritual ideal.
    This is painful, as I know first-hand: when I married a divorced man, I
    could not do so in church, or continue to take Communion at Mass. Mine is a
    painful situation, but not an unfair one: as a Catholic, I knew the rules.”

    Given that The Church does not allow divorcees to remarry, and yet these same divorcees can get married at the registry office, why doesn’t The Church demand that you can only be married by a religious leader? In one sweeping motion the idea of divorcee, trans-religious, non-religious and gay marriage is done away with. The argument then becomes one of religious recognition.

    Of course this argument would last all of two minutes because then you would have religious advantage sanctioned by the state. That might be the norm in the Middle East but not western society.

    It’s still a religious anti-gay argument and thus holds no water.

    • Patriot

      Marriage is between Man and wife – as a woman is not a man  — two women Unionise , they dont marry .
      My marriage declaration included the words  Husband and Wife  .– man and woman .
      Still married after 20 years and raising two sons — my wife & I give our sons a different range of views … a wider balance than most Homos could manage eg advice and experiences about circumcision of the penis .

      No woman could advise a son on penis and scrotum/testicle matters –  based on their experience . Google aint the full story on that . !!

      How many of you have been married for 20+ years and loving it  !

      I still put the toothpaste on her toothbrush + warm her towel for after shower – that aint sexist either . !

      • Cobolt

         Congratulations on both your 20 years of marriage and the raising of your two sons. For myself I celebrate 16 years with my wife next week and we have 4 kids.

        In your vows you had Husband and Wife, so? You are husband and wife it fits your situation. That’s not to say Husband and Husband can’t work.

        And as for your advice regarding circumcision, there’s a great many men who could not offer that advice to their sons, me being one. At least with a gay couple there’s the chance for the dads to give both views.

        The idea that a same sex couple just can not be married is nothing more than your inability to look beyond what you have always known. It’s called being closed minded.

      • Auto_immune

        “No woman could advise a son on penis and scrotum/testicle matters –  based on their experience . Google aint the full story on that . !!”

        There was this lesbian couple I knew who had a son via sperm donation. The parents simply ensured that the kid had a strong relationship with his uncles and grandfathers in case things like that cropped up from time to time.

        • Patriot

           Good for that lesbian pair to make references to someone to give the masculine viewpoint from 1st hand experience.

          BUT — aint that the exception to the principle of mum/dad  being on hand , Married to each other – ready,willing + able , for consultation at any time – past the 9pm phone up time .

          Dad is the best person — not a lesabian – to tell, if asked , how not to embarrass one self , if, say he is with an attractive girl in a group and the lad has grown a large erection , whilst sitting down  — can any lesbian tell me what she would advise  a son to do to avoid being ” sprung ” if that pretty girl is about to sit on his lap and sit on his erection , when he does NOT wish to scare her off with a ” boner ” — or be ridiculed by others , if she should ” spring him ”

          How many lesbians  can answer that question   — my point –  is a dad with mum gives a wider perspective than two lesbians.

      • Sancho

        Patriot… that is the stupidest argument I have ever heard (though I haven’t finished reading the rest of the comments yet). By your logic anyone who who doesn’t have an experienced caregiver of the same sex is never going to understand basic functions of their genitalia? My friend raised 3 daughters on his own. Did all the talks with them- periods, bras, boys etc. Myself, I was raised by a solo mother. No male role models in my life. Now I’m married with 3 sons. I guess you are saying that since I never had a father to give me advice I am going to pass on unreliable information to my own sons? Get a fucking brain. I pity your sons who have an idiot for a father (most probably a mother aswell considering she married you).

  • Hakim of phut

    So now its this wonderful institution of marriage.
     Historically its been very one sided towards mens interests and  only in 1991 in the UK was marital rape exemption outlawed.  And before that married woman had lessor rights than their husband back to Victorian times when they were nothing.
    Even today certain Christian/ Muslim groups promote a wife as being subservient to the husband.
    If they had their way  these cultural and outdated concepts would become law . As did happen in Ireland  once they achieved independence from Britain, divorce was made illegal because the RC Church said so.

  • BJ

    Some of us still subscribe to marriage and many still aspire to be in one – that is, with a view to a man and a woman committing to create and work together at raising a family. These days the  success rates may not be that great  but the foundation still stands. I will not accept that some other group thinks they can come along and change the perception/game/rules (whatever you want to call it) of what I signed up for.
    By all means have your abnormal gay relationships but don’t ram it down my throat (no pun intended) by insisting you must also be allowed to subscribe to the group I belong to. All I am saying is, take ownership of what your gay relationship represents and is built on and make up a new name that is unique to your community. Because, in the sense of marriage you will never belong to the same one as me.

    • Cobolt

       Bigoted much?
      There is no changing of perceptions/games/rules. Two people want to be legally recognised as being a partnership, hell even to raise kids.
      No one is ramming anything down your throat, no one is saying you must attend anyone’s wedding or witness any other act. It is you who is decrying to others what they can or can not do.
      STFU and climb back under your rock.

      • BJ

        Bigot I am not. What a convenient name to call me just because I don’t subscribe to your views. I have been married for 25yrs and have contributed 5 beautiful children to humanity that wouldn’t have been possible if they hadn’t been born. What contribution does a homosexual relationship make to humanity – none because it is self limiting so it doesn’t fit the definition  of marriage.
        My request is that you leave marriage where it belongs

      • Shaun McC

        There is nothing wrong with being a bigot, intolerance  is a good thing it helps us preserve our values and encourages socially  responsible behaviour while heaping shame on those whose conduct is not up to standard.

    • Hakim of phut

      So you are saying ‘separate but equal’  is fine  for gay people. 

  • Urban Redneck

    Homosexual advocates contend that there can be no justifiable objection to furthering the status of marriage to those who are not heterosexual. Homosexual or straight — what does it matter, as long as two people “love” each other, right? But liberals/progressives who make this argument merely reveal they have no idea of the significance of marriage.
    They seem to think it’s just another contractual arrangement involving a
    binding (or not so binding) commitment — like buying a house. But in reality, marriage
    is a unique institution because it involves the process by which
    humanity reproduces itself — which is only through the union of male and
    female. The fact that some married couples are childless is irrelevant. The sole reason marriage
    has universal value and appeal throughout humanity is that it is vital for the healthy nurture of the
    next generation. This is because children need to be brought up by the
    two people who created them.

    Homosexual activists contend that homosexuals should be able to get married because
    everyone is entitled to the same status. But why should this be the case
    if their sexual circumstances are different? If the status of marriage is extended to other relationships, the
    institution will be undermined. In addition to this, long standing monogamous relationships are the last thing homosexuals want – relationships between male homosexuals (for example) which reach any form of longevity have become asexual friendships, with all of the sexual activity often occurring with scores of random partners outside of the core relationship. But it doesn’t take a great deal of research to discover that the vanguard of the homosexual movement despise traditional societal mores and family structures – homosexual activist Michaelangelo Signorile, writing in Out! Magazine:

    “fight for same sex marriage, its benefits, and then once granted redefine the institution of marriage completely . . .to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution . .The most subversive action lesbians and gays can undertake – one that would perhaps benefit all of society – is to transform the notion of “family” altogether”
    There it is: the mission is not participation but SUBVERSION. Ultimately, the homosexual elite want the freedom to indulge in all activities – as expressed by the latest buzzword of the homosexual lifestyle “polyamory”, (which is group sex) – that will destroy any meaningful definition of family. The fact that liberals cannot bring themselves to understand this, is quite extraordinary.

    • Cobolt

      “But in reality, marriage is a unique institution because it involves the process by which
      humanity reproduces itself — which is only through the union of male and female.”
      WTF? So women can only fall pregnant if they are married? You’ll have some evidence for this of course.

      “In addition to this, long standing monogamous relationships are the last thing homosexuals want”
      In addition it is the last thing many heterosexual men and quite a few woman want.

      Oh and well done for recognising that one magazine contributor speaks for all in the gay community.

      Urban Redneck, I think you are one who has fully earned the title of Sanctimonious Fucktard!

      • Andrei

        “But in reality, marriage is a unique institution because it involves the process by which 

        humanity reproduces itself — which is only through the union of male and female.”

        WTF? So women can only fall pregnant if they are married? You’ll have some evidence for this of course.

        No- but it is infinitely better if women don’t get pregnant until they are married because if they are married then they have a man in their life who can help with the raising of the child – which is why children that result from families where the parents are married do better in life and fit more easily into the prevailing culture as adults.

      • BJ

        I note you use the expletive ‘fucktard’ a lot. I’m sorry you can’t find the proper words to express your frustration. Go look in the mirror.

      • Cobolt

          @3ccab6a637cebad7280eb6ae31a81fb1:disqus  Andrei:
        Have you heard of IVF?, Adoption? Children from a previous relationship? Surrogate Mothers? These are all ways that gay couples can have their own children and none of it precludes or prejudices a gay couples ability to raise them in a loving and supportive family to do just as well in life as any other child.

      • Ciaron_A

        WTF? So women can only fall pregnant if they are married? You’ll have some evidence for this of course.

        epic comprehension fail.

        … marriage is a unique institution because it involves the process by which humanity reproduces itself…

        There is nothing in that statement that implies only married women can fall pregnant.

      • Cobolt

        Ciaron_A :
        Point, but then if marriage is just about procreation then surely there should be a rule about older people getting married, people in their 60s or more. Surely they aren’t getting married for the benefit of their future offspring. – There will be exceptions.

        But then by the same argument gay couples should not bring children up, if they can not marry they can not raise children.

        See my reply to Andrei above.

      • Ciaron_A

        …but then if marriage is just about procreation….

        No, it is not. Even a cursory investigation will tell you that.

    • Hakim of phut

      Wake up . marriage has no claim on procreation, never has , and never will.
      But in your mind  the 1% who ‘save themselves for their marriage night’ should set the rules for the other 99%.

      • Ciaron_A

        Nice strawman.

  • Andrei

    People who promote un natural marriage are fools who do not realize they are just being useful idiots for the expansion of socialism and Marxism.

    Raising children is a big commitment of long term duration. Therefore the men were bonded to women in order that this commitment was properly fulfilled for the majority of children.

    The problem for those who would remake society in their own image is that parents of children would not necessarily go along with the remakers agendas – indeed would be hostile to these agendas.

    Thus the remakers sought to gain control over the children by undermining families so that children would be bought up in their image and not those of their parents.

    They have been very successful as is evidenced by the number of people on these thread who exhibit a great deal of aptitude in parroting nonsense about “equality” and “rights” while demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of nature, humanity and history

    • Hakim of phut

      Historically , women had no rights in marriage. Should things not change ?

      And all that is asked for is the same rights that others have. 

      In fact they are not rights at all if they arent available for all.

      • Andrei

        There you go again harping on about rights.

        What rights did men have in marriage that women didn’t? What does rights in this context really mean?

        Men have duties toward their wives and children while women have duties towards their husbands and children. We do not live in a Mills and Boon world

        The trick is to form a good relationship with your spouse so as to make the things you have to do  pleasurable rather than irksome. Some people do this very well – others do  not.

        This is why there used to be sayings like marry in haste, repent at leisure.

      • BJ

        If you have chosen to turn your back on the house of heterosexuals then don’t expect to get in the back door to warm yourself at their hearth. Set up your own house.

      • Ciaron_A

        If you really believe that then there is no point in this discussion. I’m not sticking up for the millions of men who have failed their wives over the years by treating them as chattels, but your knowledge of the ideal seems somewhat lacking.

      • Cobolt

        “What rights did men have in marriage that women didn’t? What does rights in this context really mean?”
        How about the right to not be raped? How about the right to not be beaten or abused? How about the right to retain ownership in their own business?
        These are all Rights that have been “awarded” to married women over the years. Rights they did not use to have.
        You talk about knowing history before talking about rights.
        You too are a Sanctimonious Prick.

      • Steve P

        Cobolt: ”
        How about the right to not be raped? How about the right to not be beaten or abused?”

        Bollocks. Next you’ll be trotting out the old canard that men had the right to beat their wives with a stick that was narrower than thumb-width.

        Historically, men had a duty of care towards their wives and families. That meant responsibility for their wives’ assets but also their debts, and responsibility for any criminal acts their wives committed in their presence. This is also why historically women swore to obey their husbands – because the final responsibility for the marriage lay with him.

        If you are a passenger on a ship or a plane the captain is responsible for your safety and welfare, along with all the other passengers – that’s why you must follow the captain’s orders. Does that mean the captain have the right to beat, abuse or rape his passengers? Of course not, that’s preposterous; but that’s the way modern progressives have portrayed marriage historically in order to destroy it.  

        It’s one thing to say that social mores have changed (and that’s largely because medical and other technological advances have enabled those changes, not because of politics), it’s quite another to misrepresent marriage historically as some kind of brutal instrument of oppression of women.

        If marriage is now so much “more fair” and “kinder” to women, why is it that women overall now are no more likely than men to want to get married, perhaps even less so? 

    • Cobolt

      So tell me what is “Natural” about marriage in the first place without reverting to religious ideals.

      And what is the rest of this nonsense you are going on about? Remakers? Agendas? If you are going to argue a point then state the point explicitly and avoid all the conspiracy bullshit.

      • BJ

        How about moderating your language – your vulgarness sticks out like a sore thumb

    • Shaun McC

      I agree Andrei they are being used by the hard left who prey on there insecurity. If gays truly believed that their lifestyle choices were right then they wouldnt need to force straight people into supporting them.

  • Justin

    Gay Marriage is great, every dude who takes another dude out means there two more girls for me

    Let them go for it

    Who really care what people do with there lives, worry about livng your own and not sombody elses

    • Peter Wilson

      Fool….those girls wouldn’t be going out with those dudes anyway…or with you by the sound of things.

  • Patriot

    Cobolt — you completely missed my point .

    Two women who are not medical Doctors – can not give advice on their experiences in respect to advice on Penis , scrotum and testicles.

    Of course two men could — but if you read my text – i refered to two WOMEN

    Homos  — good luck to them in their happiness & contentment and may they be selfulfilled in their Union

    Marriage is a man & a woman — Homos get Unionised – thats NZ Law at this stage — otherwise you can spectulate all you wish about future NZ Law.

    Before you accuse one of being closed minded — check your facts or you become the closed one incapable of comprehending what you read .

    • Cobolt

       But Patriot, it is you who misses the point. Marriage isn’t just about procreating, not now days anyway. Ask any couple marrying where either has had a tubal ligation or vasectomy, or the elderly couple marrying for companionship or the two divorcees starting again with SOCKs.

      Are all of these people to be denied marriage as well?

      • BJ

        Ah But the groups you have just described have either had children or tried to within a heterosexual relationship and they enter into any future marriage based on their concept of it previously

      • Patriot

        Cobolt ,
        NZ Law for two women is a UNION
        NZ Law for Men+Women is Marriage

        Also, There is no legal term to procreate, in a contract of Marriage — i never said that – read my words .

        Homos are free to Unionise — thats the NZ Law aint it   ?  answer that !

      • Cobolt

         That is the whole point of this debate Patriot, should gay people be able to marry? The fact that the law says no is exactly why this debate is taking place. Duh!
        According to your argument there is no need for a govt. The laws are in place and all we need to do is abide by them. If anyone feels a law is unjust then stiff shit.

      • Cobolt

         BJ: So what of the likes of Ali Mau? She has had kids, she is divorced and now she wants to marry a new partner. But no.
        How is this different from marrying a man who has had a vasectomy for example?

      • Patriot

        Cobolt ,
         Homos have the SAME terms + conditions  in a UNION contract  as in a Marriage contract

        — so NO ,  Homos can not have Marriage — they have UNION — are they ashamed of being Unionised  ?

        Thats their legal platform – Union contract

      • Steve P

        The destruction of stable male-female pair bonded families has an effect on children that (perhaps not surprisingly) seems to perpetuate itself: 

        “Individuals who grew up in a two-parent household with a reliably investing and nurturing father during their first five to seven years of life develop a very different set of social expectations about the nature of other people…They are involved with a fairly limited number of sexual partners throughout their lifetime and in young adulthood most become strongly pair bonded to one other individual.”

  • Patriot

    What if there are no uncles that live in a handy time zone or in the same city
    What if there are no uncles or Grandads living.
    What if the lad has a chat at the dinner table about his thorts/fears/experiences  — do you wake up Uncle in London to ask him   !!!

    two Lesbians are fine/good luck to them  — but limiting in masculine experiences and advise in some masculine areas .

    Homos Unionise – men & women Marry .

    ps by definition you cant have TWO Husbands —  can only be a Husband to a wife , and nothing else , in a marriage .

    • Cobolt

       What if Dad dies in a road accident on his way to work?
      What ifs don’t work in arguments like these.

      “ps by definition you cant have TWO Husbands —  can only be a Husband to a wife , and nothing else , in a marriage ”
      According to your limited definition.

      • Patriot

        The definition for Husband & Marriage comes from wikipaedia — not my definitions

        Go debate with them their definitions — otherwise for Marriage definitions – go to the NZ Marriage Act . tell us what it says there , C’mon  smarty, front up .

         You are the limited thinking one — so debate the issues – stop calling people meaningless names to try to win a debate — makes u look stupid and short on Logic .

        If Dad dies – then so could Lesbian die — that argument is fallacious

      • Cobolt

         Using Wikipedia to back an argument of this sort is so short sighted. You do realise that Wikipedia can be edited by anybody at anytime.
        Also just because that may be the thinking of today does mean it has to stay that way. And referring to the NZ Marriage act does not add to this debate. It is the reason for this debate.

        If Dad dies – is no more fallacious than “What if there are no Uncles or Grandads.” Which was exactly my point.

      • BJ

        Alison Mau has stepped out of the heterosexual house and shut the door behind her so she cannot expect to slip in the back door uninvited

    • Auto_immune

      Interesting point, Patriot.  I would say that single-gendered parenting exists even within heterosexual-based relationships though:  Absentee parents, sole-custody, one parent dies etc.  
      In the ‘chat at the dinner table’ scenario you provide, I’ll say that my Dad worked shift work growing up and was not often there during meal times and the like – it happens.  

      I’d argue that genuinely good parents (straight or rainbow) will work through any issues that arise regarding their kids – it may not be the ideal – but they’ll work through it, and their kids will feel loved all the same. 

      • Patriot

        Parents love is NOT at issue nor disputed whether it be Marriage or a Union contract  — it can assumed for the debate . Unless Dad is Mongrel Mob and mum is Black Power eg Turangi maori Rapist — where mum ADMITTED  she was drunk too often – supplying drugs, grog, dope.

        Dad dinner chats — or Dads breakfast chats , or weekend chats or Dads chats at Eden Park rugby , Dads chat while tramping, Dads chats while walking on the beach  — use yer imagination Pal .

        Your logic is focusing on exceptions to the rule rather than the principle

        The point is that masculine experiences that MAY occur with a son – like penis burn /scrotum itch/sore testicles after a girl has sat on his lap  — advice like that is best dispensed from a man with a penis/scrotum/testicle — rather than a woman who does not have those items ( unless advised by a woman doctor – which i had )

        Try to get with the logic — i aint interested in exceptions which there can be
        Argue on the PRINCIPLE  and only the Principle

        — and No swearing or name calling — that tells me you have lost the debate

      • Peter Wilson


        I like it…..”Try to get with the logic…”

        then….”no name calling….that tells me you have lost the debate….”

      • Auto_immune

        Patriot: The main point I was trying to make was that – in a gay marriage context – there were ways to give children access to adults of both genders for their upbringing; they need not be a biological father or mother.  That was all.  I discussed the so-called exceptions to illustrate that some kids raised in the “traditional” manner may actually miss out on valuable talks with the appropriate adult too.

        Doubtless WO will do another post on gay marriage and maybe we’ll resurrect this conversation then. :)

      • Patriot

        Auto-Immune ,
        Yes agree in a Lesbian Union -those children can arrange to have male contact & not necessarily Dad – yep
        But —   Dad is not Johnny on the spot in a Lesbian Union
         – like my son came to me last nite and asked if he was being conned by an offshore purchaser who is in the NZ Army suggesting a convoluted payment method for a car we are selling .  I was able to look at his emails on the ipad right there & then

        The Point   ?   In a Marriage , Dad is  ” in residence ” + access is immediate ( if not working or away ) on any subject…. masculine comments if sought-  are at hand — unlike Lesbian union setup where Dad is absent

        yea yea yea  — someone will find an exception and bang on about it — i’m talking Principle – not exceptions

        I have no issues with Lesbians in a Union — good luck to them , may they remain happy & find what they are looking for as it must be a difficult tack to navigate peoples perceptions & find acceptance & serenity . May Lesbians be at peace with how they found themselves .  

  • Shaun McC

    As with all gay “rights” issues its about forcing the majority to abandon their beliefs in order  to relieve the guilt and self loathing that gay people instinctively feel towards themselves. This explains their hatred of people who believe in conservative values and traditional society and why the majority of them belong to the hard left

    • Guestosterone


      not the forcing of beliefs by a minority who believe in invisible pink unicorns and a a big ancient book of fiction-based bullshit on to other human beings..?Shaun McChurch is it?majority my arse fuck knuckle

      • BJ

        Yukkkkkkkkkkk! You are one self gratifying excuse for a human being.

      • Guestosterone

        why thank you

      • Shaun McC

        Religion has nothing to do with it in my case, although  I do respect JudaoChristian morals and values. Your reaction though makes me think iv stuck a nerve

  • Guestosterone

    any of you godbotherers played the back 9 with the wife..?

  • Agent BallSack

    We should outlaw Christianity except for closet homosexuals. Oh wait, we already have.

    • ???

      • Cobolt

         He’s basically calling all Christians closet homos. I wonder what Whale thinks of that.

        • Hmmm ABS not your finest comment there I must say…

  • Shaun McC

    WO did I say something you dont agree with? my last comment seems to have vanished

  • Shaun McC

    Now I see your true colours

  • Shaun McC

    Sorry WO disregard my last two comments I didnt turn the page. My mistake

    • Guestosterone

      try turning over a new leaf is my advice

  • T&A

    If two people love each, and choose to marry then why on earth not? I simply don’t understand what the palava is all about. I’m genuinely bewildered why people get so upset at the thought of people being happy/loving each other/marrying. Any and all arguments against gay marriage is simply disingenuous and bigoted, also mean and small minded. Is the thought of sodomy or sex without a penis getting in the way of rational thoughts? Any arguments that use the ‘institute of marriage’ as an argument against gay marriage is simply antiquated bullshit – for christ’s sake it’s 2012 – societies and cultures change over time – its human nature. I’m a happily married hetro woman if anyone was bothered to wonder.

    • Guest

      Exactly right! I cannot understand why people get so het up about this and why the government hasn’t just changed the law, surely live and let live applies here… I wouldn’t want anyone telling me who I can and can’t marry and I wouldn’t tell anyone else who they could or couldn’t marry. If two people love each other they should be able to get married and enjoy that experience without some wanker whining about it.

      I’m a heterosexual woman so getting married is pretty straight forward for me (sort groom, get licence, get married – done), my twin on the other hand is a gay man and, even though he’s been in a relationship for a long time the best he can get is a ‘civil union’ which isn’t quite the same (lots of people try and argue it is but it really isn’t particularly if you want to have a child at some point)

      • Patriot

        Guest ,
        why are you moaning yourself into the ground about a lesbian Union — thats what your contractual arrangement is called for lesbians .

        The contract terms and conditions of Unions are similar/same as Marriage of men + Women .

        Wheres the problem ?  Go do a Civil Union  – thats the deal thats the Law
         … I dont need the Marriage law changed – its just fine as it is — its great .

        Go & sort another maori child murderer out — geez aint they realised that the maoris have had their share of child murders — STOP now  !  

  • Patriot

    Sancho 1 comment collapsed Collapse Expand
    Patriot… that is the stupidest argument I have ever heard (though I haven’t finished reading the rest of the comments yet). By your logic anyone who who doesn’t have an experienced caregiver of the same sex is never going to understand basic functions of their genitalia? My friend raised 3 daughters on his own. Did all the talks with them- periods, bras, boys etc. Myself, I was raised by a solo mother. No male role models in my life. Now I’m married with 3 sons. I guess you are saying that since I never had a father to give me advice I am going to pass on unreliable information to my own sons? Get a fucking brain. I pity your sons who have an idiot for a father (most probably a mother aswell considering she married you). …………………………………………………………………………………Hey Sancho ,Are you unable to debate without losing yourself and your argument to cursing & swearing — or is your inability to remain calm a result of not having a Dad with your solo mother to moderate & guide you .Try to get a grip on yourself & stay with the lines of logic – rather than explode in a flurry of swearing which shoots you & your argument down  Try again if you calm down  – otherwise try an Anger Management course.

    • Sancho

      Good one Patriot… you don’t even try to counter anything I said, you just moan and cry because I used 1 naughty word. What a pussy.
      How about recognising the stupidity of your argument instead of having a sook over 1 sweary word.
      Your pathetic reply just reinforces the last sentence of my previous comment.

      You should probably read another blog… I think this one might be too much for your precious sensibilities.
      (Please don’t whine back at me… It’s embarrassing dude)

      • Patriot

        Sancho ,
         It may be new to you — but try some logic

        If you wish to deliver a message – stay on message – trying to shoot the messenger — AND MISSING , makes you look more than stupid .

        also , your conclusions dont follow the premise  .

        I am glad you are feeling embarrassed — a good start  for you .

    • Sancho

      Patr(id)iot, I guess you couldn’t read my comment through all your tears. Try again honey.

      • Patriot

        Sancho  – when your only idea is to attempt to throw some weak abuse – throw some shallow color  — you get to a level of irrelevance and your argument is not worth reading – let alone responding to .

        Take your Mexican name and try the Alamo — you may have better luck there

  • Shaun McC

    I turned over a new leaf in 1993 when I joined the Armed Forces and ive learned  to love and kill

  • Vicltd

    My new Thai wife says  a small penis shouldn’t ruin our sex life, she’s probably right but I still wish she didn’t have one

  • brian

    of course men should be able to marry
    what would happen if i got my boyfriend pregnant
    do they want my child to be a bastard