Arguments against changing the marriage law

There are regular discussions on Kiwiblog about marriage equality and homosexuality. Here are some comments from yesterday’s General Debate in support of no change to marriage law.

The discussion was kicked off by this comment by iMP:

Latest poll (Curia/FamFirstNZ) on same-sex marriage (thanks DPF). 47% agree, 43% believe Civil Unions sufficient. Half of NZ think should go to a binding referendum. Strong support for special protections for people who disagree with gay marriage.


“hold on, maybe all this gay rights stuff is going to be imposed on me somehow”

As it eventually will.


Marriage due to it’s very nature – the relationship OF natural procreation- has by it’s very PERFORMANCE or PATTERN been defined for 6000+ years – long, long, long before NZ law was ever ‘recognized’.


As clueless as ever Pete George as regurgitates shallow feminist memes and displays his profound ignorance of history, culture and human nature.

Listen you testosterone challenged dolt – in the real world it was fucking hard to ensure childrens survival and thus the requirement of bonding the father of any children to their mother before they were even conceived spontaneously evolved in many places long before there were Governments.

Governments usurped marriage beginning about 200 years ago and like anything the Government gets grubby its hands on have just about fucked it


Procreation has ALWAYS been at the center of Marriages’ existance.

Or in other words, if man was asexual and did NOT procreate, we would then NEVER EVER had anything like Marriage! :cool:

Yeah….some gays were ONCE Married SOMEWHERE long FORGOTTEN……and some men BEAT their wifes…….or what anyone who takes the welfare of children seriously would say – a statistical abberation. :cool:

Your arguements are immature. :cool:


I will bet you that Pete George cannot give a sound reason as to why we need same sex marriage?

Sure he can fling about bullshit about “discrimination” but that is crap the rules surrounding who can marry who are the same for everybody which means there is no disrimination.


Here’s a sound and sane reason why he shouldn’t! :cool:

Children acquired by same-sex couples are subject to problems inherent in their status. In addition, same-sex couples are more likely to be at risk for a number of problems which directly impact their ability to parent. That’s both of them.


Why is it necessary, Pete George, for the Government to register the relationships between people?

Why does the Government have to be involved?

Can you give me a profound reason for this?


No no no Pete George, I can answer that but I am not going to be distracted by the vapid talking points that you have absorbed from the gay lobby.

That is a typical leftoid trick to try and change the subject when the emptyness of their arguments is exposed – it might fool the unintelligent but not me

You need to tell me why the Government needs to be involved in personal realtionships


You know SPC we will get gay “marriage”, it will be rammed down our throats.

And you people will continue to wring your hands over the number of children being bought up on the taxpayer, the numbers killed and injured at the hands of their momma’s latest boyfriend and all the other social pathologies that the lefts destruction of marriage as we received it have wrought.

If you want to fix these problems you need to encourage young men to “cleave” to young women and for them to stick together through thick and thin as they take full responsibility for their own children and the raising of them.

Instead we re going down the track of making marriage unappealing, making out it is a hotbed of violence towards women as P George did earlier on this thread and reducing it to being a piece of Government Issued paper celebrated on issuence with a cake with two dolls on top – a piece of paper with no signicance whatsoever.

This is so dumb as to be unbelievably stupid – it will also be fatal to our culture in the not so long term


De-inking marriage from its fundamental purpose which is managing procreation will do nothing to address these things which are all examples of mismanaged procreation.

You want to fix those problems then encourage normal people to get married and stay married – reward that, not the other


Gays as individuals and as couples are already being treated as equals as they have a civil union.!

The reason they can’t use the word ‘marriage’ is because the ‘relationship itself’ is not equal to the ‘hetro relationship’. It’s Completely differant – m/f as opposed to m/m and f/f.

You are asigned a sex at birth – by observation – not by an arbitary decision made by a mid wive or doctor.

And you can’t EVER change that truth.


Apparently they have had legal gay marriage in Canada for some time..It has not resulted in any great flurry of freedom, instead it has meant a big increase in state involvement in relationships impacting both adults and children.


I see little change to wider society as a result, it simply becomes more inclusive

Oh ye of such little foresight. Are you really that blind?
It will change everything. Marriage won’t be marriage any more – at least it won’t mean what it always did.

Fletch posted this quote:

For many years homosexuals simply wanted the government out of their bedrooms. They wanted freedom to do as they pleased in the privacy of their own homes. With the exception of a few archaic, unenforced laws, homosexuals can now live without legal interference. As one writer put it, the closet door is wide open. Homosexual characters take the lead in TV sitcoms. They’ve been elected to Congress and sit on the President’s cabinet.

But liberty and influence have not been enough. Homosexuals are after bigger game. This debate is not about hate versus tolerance. It’s not about justice. It’s not even about the liberty to make life-long unions. It’s about something else. Homosexuals want the courts to give them by force what the public would not voluntarily cede: respect and honor.


Kea – marriage is the foundation of our civilization. It is worth fighting to preserve it, damaged as it has been by the progressives.


heres the thing. Dime has no issue with gay people (i think trannys are generally messed up though). i dont care who sleeps with who etc etc

BUT i do wonder if this gay marriage thing is just something driven by the gay elites with the sole purpose of pissing off the church.

what rights do gays not have under civil unions that “married” people have?


For a condescending middle of the road ahole, you seem rather insensitive to how a large group of people feel.

Because… The world won’t end.

The world won’t end if I cave your head in with a brick, but you’d probably prefer that didn’t happen.

Anyway, under a civil union people share the same surname if they wish. They live together. They have protection so if one of them dies they inherit that persons shit (bit of an issue with gay people in the past).

What exactly does marriage have that civil unions don’t?

They even have ceremonies for civil unions.

What percentage of the population is gay? 3%?

Percentage of Christians who are against it?

I know have 5 gay friends. 1 insists on the marriage thing, the other 4 don’t give a fuck.

So are we talking the minority of a minority that this effects? Along with piss weak losers like pg?


PG, Actually it does affect everyone, because marriage affects everyone in society because society is built on the institution of marriage. Family is the building block of society and anything that aids in the destruction of family helps destroy society.

You may not have the foresight to see it, but it ultimately does affect you and everyone else, married or not. The effects of it will ripple out, just like from a stone thrown into a pond.

Just look at what happened to the ancient Roman civilization. They were so powerful that no one could even touch them militarily, but they destroyed themselves from the inside-out – moral decay always precedes the actual fall of a civilization.


Dr. Carle Zimmerman from Harvard wrote a book in 1947 in which he researched the different roles that marriage played in different historical periods.  He wanted to find out if there was a correlation between the health of a nation and the health of the family.  His book is called “Family and Civilization”.

He found that there are three basic patterns to families.  One pattern is always dominant in a developing nation, the second pattern always dominates in a thriving nation, and the third pattern always dominates in a nation in decline.

He found a direct correlation between the health of the family and the health of a nation.  He said that you can predict exactly where a nation is in its life cycle just by studying the family. 

According to this research, eight specific patterns of domestic behaviour have signalled the downward spiral and imminent demise of every culture:

* Marriage lost its sacredness; it was frequently broken by divorce.

* Traditional meaning of the marriage ceremony was lost. Alternate forms and definitions of marriage arose, and traditional marriage vows were replaced by individual marriage contracts.

* Feminist movements appeared, and women lost interest in child bearing and mothering, preferring to pursue power and influence.

* Public disrespect for parents and authority in general increased.

* Juvenile delinquency, promiscuity, and rebellion accelerated

* People with traditional marriages refused to accept family responsibilities.

* Desire for and acceptance of adultery grew.

* Increased tolerance for sexual perversions of all kinds, particularly homosexuality, with a resultant increase in sex-related crimes.

Sound like any culture that we know?


It’s another parameter in the same equation, Sofia. But its a very important parameter, since it deals with the label. And the label is not a word, it’s the brand. And if brand isn’t important, how come Microsoft and IBM and any corporate, spends billions on every single year and puts it on its balance sheet.

Those who don’t understand social engineering think it’s just a word, and they also think because it doesn’t affect them or their marriage, that therefore, ergo, ipso facto, it’s not a big deal.

Which is what they want you to think.

But if you do understand social engineering, and it’s not hard if you care to educate yourself, then you know, this is precisely why there’s a global campaign, not just a local campaign, throughout the Western world, specifically to capture the brand this single word.

Those who think might ask themselves, just why there is such a global campaign, over this single word. If it wasn’t important and it really is just a word.

And in case you’re wondering, the word isn’t marriage, it’s what it connotes in people’s mind: i.e. why a brand like IBM is on the balance sheet at billions of dollars. It’s not because it’s an initialism standing for International Business Machines. It’s because when people see it or hear it they immediately conjure up a mental image. That’s what the value is. And with marriage, guess what people immediately conjure up: that’s right. Family, children, commitment, fidelity, all those good things. That all changes, if all of a sudden, marriage is associated with other “values” just precisely exactly the same way it would change if IBM teamed up with some tinpot Chinese PC maker who built crap products and swore at their customers when they dared to call the help line. IBM wouldn’t do that in a million years. But apparently, lots of extraordinarily useless moron idiots, don’t see anything wrong with treating the marriage brand, in precisely exactly the same way.

Isn’t that dumb of them.

And they’re not going to suffer, it’s their kids and their grandkids who will experience the slow and subtle change over the decades as marriage becomes nothing more than a casual meaningless commitment that is no more significant in the wider context of someone’s overall life than a drunken 21st party.

That’s the plan. And it’s proceeding apace isn’t it. All wrapped up in its “human wights” envelope. Lest the useless moron idiots get wind of it before it’s all too late.


So your argument is that because since the sixties, when feminism got started on it, the marriage brand as it now is today is damaged, therefore it’s not worth saving?

That’s a pretty dumb argument Sofia.

Perhaps you should look at what happened to Apple, in its “wilderness years” before Jobs took back the helm.

But that’s trivial, by comparison to marriage.

However, good to see you didn’t address any of the substantive points I made. You can’t really, can you. It’s very simple, isn’t it.

Only useless idiots morons don’t get it. Perhaps it’s all that weeping and wailing and rending their clothes, over the humanity of it all.

Too bad the same useless idiot morons don’t think about their own kids isn’t it, when they’re thinking about “the humanity.”

But that would require an IQ above room temperature wouldn’t it. Perhaps that’s why there’s such a high level of useless moron idiocy surrounding this issue.

It’s unlikely any of those views will change no matter what counter argunments are used.


  1. graham

     /  February 27, 2013

    Just as it’s also unlikely that you will change YOUR views no matter what counter arguments are used.

    Both sides are convinced they’re right. Neither side will change.

    • I have changed my views over the last couple of years, by listening to arguments on both sides. I had thought Civil Unions were sufficient until I understood the prejudice and second classness involved.