John Key says that changing the definition of marriage to include two people of the same-sex will not undermine his marriage to his wife, Bronagh.
Well, good. I don't think anyone has ever seriously argued same-sex marriage would undermine John Key's marriage to his wife, or would indeed undermine any person's marriage.
However, how future generations, including how John Key's children and grandchildren will view marriage is another matter entirely. If you expand a definition enough, it will soon become meaningless.
Already in NZ today, we have young women who don't even contemplate marriage at all. Their idea of a future is to get pregnant to some young man who probably won't stick around and go on the Domestic Purposes Benefit. The DBP has been around for roughly forty years, and I doubt this sort of societal change was obvious at first, but now it's not difficult to find women who are making radically different choices about their lives because it exists and there is no expectation to get married before engaging in activities that result in children.
Does John Key want a future for his descendants where marriage is rendered so meaningless that no one engages in it any more? A future where very few children will live with their fathers, because there is no expectation that they will? A future where it is the State's job to look after all the mothers and their children because men no longer feel they need to get married in order to get companionship and sex? Expanding the definition of marriage will help in this wholesale decline, because marriage will mean everything and nothing.
Does John Key also want a future where the full force of the state will come down on those few who will continue to insist that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and two of the same-sex can't be married, no matter how many times it is said that they are? That is the type of near future we will be hurtling into, where a business owner will be discriminated against by the State because he supports true marriage:
I'm glad that John Key's marriage won't be undermined by same-sex marriage. However, his marriage is not what is at stake here.
Related link : PM says gay marriage doesn’t affect his marriage to Bronagh ~ KiwiBlog
A previous, very relevant post: Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry ~ NZ Conservative
“You go through all the merits of the argument and look at what people put up; but my view is that if two gay people want to get married I can’t see why it would undermine my marriage with Bronagh,” he told Radio Live.
Well, good. I don't think anyone has ever seriously argued same-sex marriage would undermine John Key's marriage to his wife, or would indeed undermine any person's marriage.
However, how future generations, including how John Key's children and grandchildren will view marriage is another matter entirely. If you expand a definition enough, it will soon become meaningless.
Already in NZ today, we have young women who don't even contemplate marriage at all. Their idea of a future is to get pregnant to some young man who probably won't stick around and go on the Domestic Purposes Benefit. The DBP has been around for roughly forty years, and I doubt this sort of societal change was obvious at first, but now it's not difficult to find women who are making radically different choices about their lives because it exists and there is no expectation to get married before engaging in activities that result in children.
Otara administrator Delaney Papua, who turns 20 next month and is expecting her first baby in November, says going on the benefit seems to be just what you do when you get pregnant.
"All the people that I know that have kids go on it, so I kind of just assumed that you have to be on that," she says.
The babies' fathers often have no role in the families they help create, giving them no anchor in society. Papua doesn't expect her baby's father to support her.
"He's sending mixed messages, he says one thing and then another. I wouldn't know," she says. "I'd like to have him in the picture - maybe not together as a couple, seeing as we butt heads a lot, but being some sort of support with the baby.
"I don't know any friends that are being supported by their partner. A lot of them are in a relationship, but it will be on and off again, especially after having a child. He'd be working, or he'd lose his job, they're together, they're not together."
Does John Key want a future for his descendants where marriage is rendered so meaningless that no one engages in it any more? A future where very few children will live with their fathers, because there is no expectation that they will? A future where it is the State's job to look after all the mothers and their children because men no longer feel they need to get married in order to get companionship and sex? Expanding the definition of marriage will help in this wholesale decline, because marriage will mean everything and nothing.
Does John Key also want a future where the full force of the state will come down on those few who will continue to insist that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and two of the same-sex can't be married, no matter how many times it is said that they are? That is the type of near future we will be hurtling into, where a business owner will be discriminated against by the State because he supports true marriage:
Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy has consistently backed "the biblical definition of a family," and his foundation has contributed to groups working to maintain the traditional definition of a marriage--one man and one woman. He later added, "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage'."
[...]
But three liberal Mayors not only attacked Cathy's beliefs and words, but they threatened to block any Chick-fil-A restaurants from being opened in their cities. Those threats were not veiled.
I'm glad that John Key's marriage won't be undermined by same-sex marriage. However, his marriage is not what is at stake here.
Related link : PM says gay marriage doesn’t affect his marriage to Bronagh ~ KiwiBlog
A previous, very relevant post: Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry ~ NZ Conservative
OK, educate me time.
ReplyDeleteJust what is this "biblical definition of a family"? It seems to change from book to book, then from OT to NT.
I'll avoid the OT as you'll just say "new covenant", so let me ask these questions. Please.
1. Where in the bible does jesus say that only a married couple can create a family?
2. Where in the bible does Jesus say marriage is only between one man and one woman?
3. Where in the bible does Jesus say that marriage is a holy sacrament?
4. Where in the bible does Jesus describe the marriage ceremonies of the church?
5. Where in the bible does Jesus get married? Actually, where in the bible to Joseph and Mary get married?
I look forward to the responses.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe argument above does not really use the biblical justification for marriage - save those questions for a more relevent post.
ReplyDeleteThe argument above discusses how changing the definition of marriage will have an impact on society and the family unit, and cites the DPB as an example. Lucia makes a very good point.
I thought my questions related directly to Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy has consistently backed "the biblical definition of a family," and his foundation has contributed to groups working to maintain the traditional definition of a marriage--one man and one woman. He later added, "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage'."
ReplyDeleteBut, if you don't know the answers,that's OK.
If marriage was a registered principle like a patent, the definition is not only protected but also the practice of the idea into being. The principle of marriage is protected by a religious belief as sacred. The misused or misinterpretation by practice is a violation of the mana of believers. And yes, that has a social and spiritual effect on a people.
ReplyDeleteThe red pinko social engineering continues with the bluecoats. John Key has lost heaps of votes in a country where child abuse should be a priority!! But no way as Key wants to give into a minority radical homosexual movement.Pathetic and sad. National are as sick as the rest of the poliltical loons running this country into the ground.
ReplyDeleteGod help NZ!
If marriage was a registered principle like a patent,then it would have expired 20 years after the grant.
ReplyDeleteLRO,
ReplyDelete1. Ten Commandments, Thou Shalt not commit adultery.
2. When asked about marriage by the Pharisees, Jesus refers back to the beginning, ie Adam and Eve.
3. See No. 2
4. The Bible is not a manual for marriage ceremonies in a church, but all the promises made are Biblical.
5a. On the Cross, when He dies.
5b. When Jesus was conceived. See Joseph and Mary: Were they truly married even though they did not consummate their marriage?
Actually, I'll amend my 5b to: At betrothal.
ReplyDeleteOk, what is undermined is the object of so-called 'love'. Marriage is implied tradition between one man and one woman, their love is bound by a principle sustained by the practice of caring, compassion, giving, sharing, etc of moral and social values. The practice transcends their marriage into being one.
ReplyDeleteLove in a same sex relationship is not based on moral or social values, but by the physical attraction hence, lust. The practice of this physical lust results with abuse of the object or body of the so-called loved one. This relationship remains subjective.
Sarc://
ReplyDeleteThe Big question when redefining traditional morals, values, etc. Is what's next?
If same sex marriage is deemed to be OK.
Will polygamy be legalized?
Will marriage to a human and dog/goat/sheep or to whatever be legalized?
Afterall you have to cater to all whims and desires of all minorities in a socalled Liberal secular society.
How about being legally able marry your favourite soft toy or a rock?
Let's make it legal to marry a rock. At least with the 'defined' marriage status those who marry a rock will be entitled to all benefits of marriage. Including Tax breaks. I bet some people would marry a rock if they could. The rock is a silent type. It doesn't talk back.
LiberalLeftie,
ReplyDeleteWhen homosexuality was decriminalized in NZ, we would not have been able to name one country that had redefined marriage to be between two persons of the same-sex. Yet, here we are today, debating same-sex marriage.
Same-sex marriage has only existed in the world since 2001. Not really enough time for the next change to start pushing it's way through. I'd give it 10 more years and we'll start seeing polygamy legalized in the West.
Oh, stop being such an arrogant prat and show some respect or just meander on back to your own unpopulated blog!
ReplyDeleteLOL! Yep, I'm making up complete likes. Not sure how, but there ya go!
ReplyDeleteSurely the law is up for revision because society has changed. The way your post comes across, one might think that the law will lead society. in to something. Marriage has been many things, in earlier times marriage had an economic and political basis that would be repugnant to many so-called 'conservatives'.
ReplyDeleteMurpheus,
ReplyDeleteYes, society has changed. However, will it survive the changes? Some of us think not.
Oh bullshit. Stop making up complete [lies?] to defend your archaic and outdated viewpoint
ReplyDeleteGee, I never figured you for a bigot. You appear to be holding on to an archiac view that "marriage" is only between two people, and as we have already heard, any opposition to a more modern concept is simply bigotry, and nothing else.
If same sex marriage is deemed to be OK.
ReplyDeleteWill polygamy be legalized?
Will marriage to a human and dog/goat/sheep or to whatever be legalized?
If opposite-sex marriage is deemed to be OK, will those things happen?
Various people who are apparently incapable of distinguishing a logical argument from the urging of their own personal prejudice peddle this "next people will be marrying their pets" non sequitur - with not even a hint of embarrassment. Sad.
In a dog eat dog world, anything is possible PM.
ReplyDeleteBut tell me, why don't you think Polygamy is on the cards?
If the logic says the term marriage can easily be redfined from man/women to two people, why not multiple people?
If it's simple bigotry that prevents people making the leap from m/w to combo, why do we restrict it to just 2 people.
Aren't the essential elements only mutual consent, declared love, and desire to have the State recognise what polygamists will say is a valid relationship?
There is no logical argument of "gay marriage" Milt.
ReplyDeleteIt is just an example of a tiny vocal whining minority stamping their feet to get their own way.
They will get their "marriage" and further degrade the institution in the process - which is what this is all about when it comes down to it,
And fifty years from now homosexuality will no longer be tolerated because a huge backlash is coming.
Slightly OT: Here's a post that lists some strange "marriages" including man marrying a dog, a cat and a pillow.
ReplyDeleteUntil Death Do Us Part
“You go through all the merits of the argument and look at what people put up; but my view is that if two gay people want to get married I can’t see why it would undermine my marriage with Bronagh,” he told Radio Live.
ReplyDeleteThen
Well, good. I don't think anyone has ever seriously argued same-sex marriage would undermine John Key's marriage to his wife, or would indeed undermine any person's marriage.
Again well argued Lucia. A parallel thought crossed my mind for John too: Questioner: "John, if someone commits suicide, does it 'undermine [your]' life?". John: "No, of course not." Questioner: "Well then let's legalise euthanasia." John: "No". Questioner: "Why not?" John: "because it devalues the institute of life".
I like your parallel argument Matthew, but I suspect John will be voting for euthansia too.
ReplyDeleteBut at least we've established it wont undermine his life.
But tell me, why don't you think Polygamy is on the cards?
ReplyDeleteIf the logic says the term marriage can easily be redfined from man/women to two people, why not multiple people?
I think you'll find that various societies at various times have so defined it, no gay marriage required. Polygamy doesn't logically follow from gay marriage any more than it logically follows from heterosexual marriage. It's effectively an unrelated issue, because it deals with the number of people who can marry, not their sexes. In our society we say two only can marry, and the reasons for that requirement stand or fall on their own merits, regardless of the sexes involved. Proponents of polyamory may take heart from marriage law being extended to cover same sex couples, but that's a matter of emotion, not logic. The argument for polyamory is unaffected by gay marriage.
Psycho,
ReplyDeleteWe are in an age where sentimentalism rules more than logic, otherwise redefining marriage from Husband and Wife to Partner and Partner would never have been seriously considered. Polygamy is currently only rife in Muslim societies, yet Muslims are migrating and growing in the West and we will have no good argument against polygamy once same-sex marriage is enacted. It's not an unrelated issue at all.
Do you have a good argument against polygamy now? If you do, in what sense would it be weakened by the existence of gay marriage?
ReplyDeletePolygamy in the way that it is practiced in the Muslim world is at least based on complementarity, with all the women being married to the man rather than each other; and ordered towards the possibility of children. So, not allowing a form of marriage that looks far more like the real thing - while calling a relationship between two of the same sex, marriage - is going to look absurd.
ReplyDeleteMilt is there something wrong with your head - if you redefine marriage to mean something other than it means to accomadate an interest group then there is no reason why other people with other agendas cannot get it redefined again to accomodate their deepest desires
ReplyDeleteBTW polygamy at least makes some sense whereas gay "marriage" is a Monty Pythonesq absurdity - Alice through the looking glass stuff.
INSANE
And dangerous.
See the reason why marriage is held in esteem is because as a society we need people to conceive and raise children, which is a time consuming and expensive business.
What so called gay "marriage" does is that it undermines the fundamental thing marriage is for and therefore does not encourage reproduction, a fundamental thing that needs to be done, needs to be done but isn't being done in these enlightened times.
In our society we say two only can marry
ReplyDeleteAnd that's where the bigotry starts!
Or at least that's my point. At one point, we were saying "In our society, marriage is between a man and a women" and the response to that was "bigotry".
Yet you suggest that because liberals want to discuss same sex marriage, and haven't tabled multi-partner marriage, it's not bigotry to dismiss the subsequent discussion.
I'm simply observing that when the argument under discussion goes against liberals, the reasoning expressed is a fight against bigotry. Extending that discussion to test what this means gets dismissed. I'm still not convinced of that difference.
In our society we say two only can marry
So let's end those sorts of bigoted statements and put everything on the table, and get the definition sorted from the perspective that it's time to right wrongs using the same logic liberals are pressing the argument with, and ignoring the bigotry where multi-partner arrangements are not recognised simply because liberals dont feel like having that discussion seems to be contrary to some of the reasons being lobbed at Conservatives.
Let's get it all on the table. In the name of marriage equality.
Polygamy in the way that it is practiced in the Muslim world is at least based on complementarity, with all the women being married to the man rather than each other; and ordered towards the possibility of children.
ReplyDeleteOr, in other words, it's your own definition of marriage, rather than gay marriage, that opens the door to polyamory.
if you redefine marriage to mean something other than it means to accomadate an interest group then there is no reason why other people with other agendas cannot get it redefined again to accomodate their deepest desires
We've already redefined it multiple times - for instance, these days marriage law is about the individuals involved rather than about protecting the two families' property rights. The moment marriage became a matter for legislators, it became something for each parliament to redefine as it chooses, or not. If you don't like legislators deciding what marriage is, start campaigning for the govt to get out of the marriage business and leave it to churches.
However, none of that addresses the issue my comment raised - the fact that polyamorous, incestuous or bestial relationships follow no more logically from gay marriage than they do from heterosexual marriage. Current marriage law provides for two people to put their relationship on a legal footing as long as they're both consenting adults, arent too closely related, and as long as one is male and one female. A proposal to remove any one of those criteria is a proposal to be addressed on its merits. And the removal of any one criterion says nothing about the merits or otherwise of the arguments for removing another of the criteria. The ignorant and overexcitable might imagine that it does, but "what will the stupid people think?" is no basis for legislation.
Yet you suggest that because liberals want to discuss same sex marriage, and haven't tabled multi-partner marriage, it's not bigotry to dismiss the subsequent discussion.
Everyone's a bigot. The question is whether people have the bollocks to stand for something and argue for it, or whether they shrink from the prospect of someone calling them a bigot, a pinko, or whatever. The problem you guys have at the moment is that National politicians mostly don't have a conscience and need a focus group to tell them what they should think about something (the current PM being a prime example), which makes them sitting ducks for anyone with the courage of their convictions and the ability to formulate an argument. Under those circumstances, yes I wouldn't be surprised if we did end up with polyamory written into marriage law as well, but the reason for it would be the general spinelessness of the govt MPs, nothing to do with gay marriage.
I think the discussion on polygamy does logically follow, on the basis of change of definition, and on the reasons used to justify those changes. Whether you choose to acknoweldge the connection or not, and wether something needs to be logically dependent (according to your criteria) or not to follow are different issues.
ReplyDeleteYour statement PM of "everyone's a bigot" fails to pay heed to the point that the liberals calling people bigots as a means to shut down the conversation most certainly don't consiuder themselves bigoted, and would reject that idea quite strongly. Which is why it is important to call them out and get polygamy on the table now. Although, I'm expecting quite a few people to cave on that logic and agree there is no reason not to continue changing the meaning of marriage to encompass far more than gay marriage.
ReplyDeleteBTW, same sex relationship is not a modern idea and definitely has no future in the civilised world. It is a medieval behaviour in the form of socialist liberalism, which is a material freedom naturally demonstrated by animal creatures.
ReplyDeleteThe New is purifying the material desire to liberate the conscience from physical attachments and thus transcends the person into being.
In this case, the so-called ‘modern’ is a political group consisting of the younger generation with old world ideas imposed by their peer’s political struggles.
Whether you choose to acknoweldge the connection or not, and wether something needs to be logically dependent (according to your criteria) or not to follow are different issues.
ReplyDeleteI fully accept that changes to legislation are generally based more on irrationalism, ignorance, prejudice and populism than logic, and on that basis it's obvious that idiots will leap to promoting polyamory on the basis that gay marriage was accepted. However, my comment was in response to the specific view that legislative provision for marriage involving polyamory, incest and bestiality logically follows from legislative provision for gay marriage. It doesn't, regardless of how many polyamorous ignoramuses imagine otherwise.
Your statement PM of "everyone's a bigot" fails to pay heed to the point that the liberals calling people bigots as a means to shut down the conversation most certainly don't consiuder themselves bigoted, and would reject that idea quite strongly.
It does pay heed to it - it just makes the point that people need to stand up for themselves when someone's calling them stupid names to try and shut them up. A right-wing version is the squawking of "anti-semitic" whenever someone mentions that maybe Israelis shouldn't be practicing "manifest destiny"-style colonialism in the 21st Century; the point is to not be shut up by obnoxious loudmouths employing those kind of tactics. The problem for conservatives here is not so much that braying liberal idiots are trying to cow MPs with cries of "bigot," so much as that the MPs involved don't stand for anything until focus groups tell them what it should be, so are easily cowed by cries of "bigot."
What naturally follows in a logical sense is conducive of freedom the moral order of objective organisation. You know, opposites attract naturally is that natural law. When same elements are arbitrated by political imposition, it is not natural and not by any means liberated.
ReplyDeleteTo attempt at an objective outcome by arbitration is force and oppression. It is reasoned by 'framing' ie; diluting the abnormal effect of the defect to make it look normal and therefore accepted. In other words, the political imposition is shoved upon everyone's belief whether they agree or not in the name of (arbitrary) human rights and (material) freedom.
It is beyond the parameters of reason and rational logic. And since there is no biological background, same sex is not a scientific entity and it will never be proven legitimate. Instead it is imposed by socialisation and indoctrination of the innocent young minds.
Um Milt
ReplyDeleteOr, in other words, it's your own definition of marriage, rather than gay marriage, that opens the door to polyamory.
And then on my trips around the blogs
I find this
And that reminds me of the one sad lack in the current campaign for marriage equality – it’s all about couples, and only couples. It would be good if it covered polyamory too. However, just as I supported civil unions even though I wished it went all the way to marriage equality, I will support this bill, of course, and then wait until we can take the next step.
Game set & match I think
I've attempted to point out the difference between positions that are supported by logic and positions that are supported by irrationalism and political opportunism. If you conflate the two, it isn't my problem.
ReplyDeleteInteresting position you have, Psycho.
ReplyDeleteLogically, according to you, people should not conflate same-sex marriage and polygamy.
Yet they do.
But that's not your problem.
However, it is our problem.
Knowing, as we do that human do not act logically in the way that you think they should, we know that, logic aside, polygamy will the next issue. Even if it makes no sense. That's what WILL happen.
But don't worry, we know it's not your problem.
I dont know why I have to keep saying this, but apparently I do: yes, I am aware that political decisions have little to do with logic, and that it is a problem. However, my comment on this thread was against the claim that marriages involving polyamory, incest and bestiality logically follow from gay marriage. They may well irrationally or opportunistically follow from it, but they do not logically follow from it.
ReplyDeleteSounds like a dog caught in a limbo trying to catch its tail..
ReplyDeleteHere's an argument from someone on KiwiBlog who thinks it's discriminatory that marriage is to be restricted to two people. Note that the whole push for same-sex marriage is under the banner of equality, meaning that those of the same-sex want to be equal to male/female marriages.
ReplyDelete"What’s the problem with polygamy anyway?
Loving one person isn’t a choice, but the state says you can’t love two?
I know a few people in long term stable poly relationships, i think it’s discriminatory the way our legal system refuses to recognize their choices. In my view, any pair (or more) of consenting adults should be able to structure their affairs in anyway they wish.
Where the victim of this crime?"
Link
Limbo indeed.
As the poster points out, it already happens. The state does NOT prohibit polyamorous relationships. Only polyamorous marriage.
ReplyDeleteIf there is informed consent from the 3 or more people involved, why is it your business, the business of the kirk or the business of the state?
How many times do we have to say it - marriage is a contract, nothing more, nothing less. You may, if you wish, dress yours up with religious ceremony, but that does not change the fact that it is state created and a state enforced contract.
Extend it to polyamory? Doesn't harm me, so go right ahead.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHey, D4J, sorry I had to remove your last comment. I admired the sheer poetry of your statement, for what it's worth.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don't think LRO is Big Bruv. You have to entertain the idea that there is more than 1 deranged person commenting on various NZ blogs.
I understand Zen. This is a dirty fight.
ReplyDeleteGod Bless and take care mate things are going to get real crazy soon.