Slippery Slope argument of Family Fist destroyed with facts

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. Ms Wall provided research to the Herald which showed that all of the 11 countries that have legalised gay marriage have outlawed polygamy.

None of the 50 countries that recognised polygamy under civil law formally recognised same-sex relationships.

Ms Wall said that in most cases, polygamy was legal in countries that repressed women, not socially progressive countries like New Zealand.

“You have countries where you can be whipped, fined, flogged, sent to jail for the rest of your life [for being in a gay relationship] so to say that marriage equality is a stepping stone to polygamy completely misrepresents the truth globally.”

Asked to respond to Ms Wall’s research, Mr McCoskrie said he acknowledged that no countries had legalised same-sex marriage then polygamy, but he felt it was “just a matter of time”.

So the only countries that allow polygamy or polyamorous relationships are in fact some of the most regressive societies in the world, where women are second class citizens.

Bob McCoskrie’s claims that this it is “just a matter of time” are spurious…and putting out press releases with 15 examples of one or two people clamouring for something is not evidence that it is or will happen here.

In any case what is wrong with polygamy…surely McCroskie should be embracing that…after it would make Bigger Families…perhaps that could be a sub-branch of his organisation….”Bigger Families First”


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.

  • While I disagree with the argument that Family First put forward, the reasoning that it hasn’t happened elsewhere doesn’t disprove their belief as the law changes around the world have all been fairly recent, far to recent to state that it won’t happen.

  • Random66

    Ms Wall might be dealing in half truths herself. She is on record as saying, “…what my Bill does not do is require any person or church to carry out a marriage if it does not fit with the beliefs of the celebrant or the religious interpretation a church has.”

    I understand the select committee has received multiple submissions, including those from the Law Society saying that this may well not be the case.

    • peterwn

      She should put her money where her mouth is and has this explicitly stated in the legislation even though it may draw an adverse BORA s7 report. Registry office ‘celebrants’ should however be obliged to officiate all marriages. At the least her stance would potentially lead to confusion with a court decision on this being required at some stage. This is the trouble with politically charged legislation (the politics cut across party lines here) – it ends up being ragged and confused with some poor judge(s) having to sort out the mess. Perhaps Louisa, while not wanting it to be mandatory by her words, hopes that some judge down the track will rule that it is mandatory.

    • Gayguy

      Any faith now has the right to refuse to marry a couple.

      Catholic priests for example. They will not marry non Catholics. And yes I do know people who this has happened to. My sister. She married a catholic, and the priest refused to marry the 2 of them.

  • Graeme Edgeler

    South Africa recognises polygamy (for example, the President has four wives) and sanctions same-sex marriage.

    • Jimmie

      Well yes South Africa’s sexual health and practices would be a wonderful example to follow…..

      • Gazzaw

        12.5% of the adult population in South Africa has AIDS which would translate to 530,000 cases in NZ. Let’s do it!!

        • Gayguy

          You do know that a massive % of those cases are heterosexual right?

          • Gazzaw

            Agreed. About 70% to be precise which equates to about 160,000 Kiwis.

            Is that acceptable Gayguy?

    • Alloytoo

      polygamy is recognised in South Africa under traditional law, traditional law often discriminates and treats woman like chattel (much like other examples cited). Gay marriage is protected by South Africa’s modern liberal constitution, and at odds with traditional law.

  • Apolonia

    Family First’s claims appear to be based on fact

    How come Wall wants a referendum on asset sales but not on redefining marriage?

    • 15 random links to nutters does not a campaign make

    • Gayguy

      Start a petition and gather the 300,000 signatures required.

      You know, like the Stop Asset Sales people have done.

      • They don’t have government funding to pay for the citizen initiated referendum like the stop asset sales people.

        Louisa Wall twisting things and forgetting a few countries doesn’t help the cause, but with all major parties generally supporting a change in the law I can’t see it not getting through.

  • Redneck

    “then the next thing that would be lobbied for would be polygamy and polyamorous relationships.”

    Funny that the activists don’t appear to agree. All you need to do is open your eyes:

    “Wellington-based activist group The Queer Avengers is
    calling for a struggle “beyond marriage”, saying while it supports
    marriage equality, it’s not the end of the line for GLBT rights. While
    the group supports Louisa Wall’s Bill to introduce marriage equality, it
    says the community still faces a number of obstacles. Member Sara
    Fraser says these include bullying, suicide and homelessness among GLBT
    youth, inadequate access to quality healthcare for trans people and
    common intimidation and violence in the streets. She adds that there are
    many family structures which marriage and adoption law does not cover,
    for example polyamory and whangai adoption. “This is not the final struggle,” Fraser says. “We’re looking ahead to the struggles beyond marriage.””

    Also, it appears that the militant sexual left are beginning to start on pedophilia too:

    Read here:

    Have a read. Apparently, pedophilia is just another “sexual orientation” who are “born that way”. The article’s author, Guardian feature columnist Jon Henley proceeds to trot out a bunch of left-wing eggheads that present “proof” that children are not harmed by the adults abusing them. This should serve as a dire portent of where the West is headed.

    • cows4me

      But they only want to be married, then we can all live happily ever after. I feel a Tui add coming on.

    • Ronnie Chow

      The Dutch had a pedo political party . Then we’ve got our very own Gerald Moonen , a public advocate and former head of AMBLA stalking around . Note that his writings and opinions are in the public sphere .

      • unsol

        NZ had a pedo party too….led by Graham Capill

        • BR

          Capill acted alone, unlike Bert Potter who founded a cult of kiddy fiddlers.


          • Gayguy


  • unsol

    Funny that polygamy is brought in as a slippery slope argument….my guess it’s because many men only like being able to sleep with more than one women in secret.

    At least with polygamy the women know who the other women are upfront & there is less secrecy….not to mention more help with kids & chores.

    Btw, do polygamist men cheat?

    • Do they need to?

      Imagine the carnage though…three wives cheated on…the ball kicking would be severe.

      • unsol

        I dont know – I dont get any of that multiple relationship stuff at all as it is such a complicated way to live life…..incidentally someone in our circle has been doing just that for years…..I don’t get how the other girls he had on the go didn’t think something was up since they never met his family in 4 years of a ‘committed’ relationship!

        But if guys want to go down that path (cant imagine many women would be keen on having more than one husband!!!) then polygamy would surely be the way to go as at least you could all live in the one house or section!

  • BR

    So why would the leftist homo “marriage” lobbyists want to restrict their “marriages” to a paltry two homos per “marriage”?


    • Gayguy

      Why do heterosexuals when there are clearly those out there who think otherwise?

      What a silly comment to make BR.

      • BR

        Bigamy is still illegal in this country. Of course if shirtlifters are able to “marry” one another, the law against bigamy would seem like an easy domino to topple.

        And in case you ask, no, I do not favour repealing the laws against bigamy.


        • Gayguy

          When homosexuals gain marriage equality, what makes you think it must happen?

          No other dumb arse thing that has been spouted off about marriage reform has ever come to pass any where in the world, so prey tell what is so different this time?

          • BR

            Why does marriage involve only two people? Answer: THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS, MALE AND FEMALE. A marriage that involves more than two people means that there would be more than one male or more than one female in the marriage. That is currently illegal in NZ, and rightly so.

            With homo “marriage” those rules cannot apply. The number of participants would necessarily exceed the number of genders, which means there would be no logical reason to restrict the number of participants to two.

            Once polygamous homo “marriages” are defined as legal, then anti discrimination laws would require that the same opportunities be extended to traditional marriage. Anti bigamy laws would be seen to be old fashioned, and there would be calls to repeal them, particularly from immigrants from some the more barbaric cultures who seem to be finding their way here in increasing numbers.

            Homo “marriage” was never a possibility until buggery was legalized.
            That is something I have always been opposed to and always will be.
            Without legalized buggery, there would have been none of that civil
            union nonsense either, so get rid of the idiotic idea that the extreme leftist
            homosexual lobby will ever be satisfied merely with homo “marriage”. They weren’t satisfied with legalized buggery or with civil unions. The sick bastards would promote kiddy fiddling if they thought it would advance their political agenda.


  • McCroskie needs to read his bible before bagging polygamy.

    • Random66

      I think we can say with a certainty Bob has read his bible several times
      over. You on the other hand might have to read yours again. Whenever polygamous relationships are mentioned in the bible they are shown as having issues and problems. The bible also in fact condemns polygamy in the law section. All that aside, as Christians we ultimately follow the teaching of Christ and whatever he said on an issue was full and final. He said one man to one woman – done. However if that doesn’t do it for you then I suppose you could distort Christ’s teaching of, ‘do to others as you would have done to yourself.’ So buddy if you want to enter into a relationship with one woman and allow her to have at least one or two other husbands as well, (this polygamy thing should swing both ways) then good luck to you. Don’t complain then when you think it’s your turn for some loving and she says, ‘Not tonight honey, I’m going to be sleeping with husband No.2 because quite frankly he’s better at it than you”. You of course can still get up in the morning and go to work and financially support the lot of them, because after all that’s what you get when you want to share your favorite toy and call it a marriage.