If it weren’t for the fact that sexual intercourse between a man and a woman leads to children and brings with it a further obligation to care for those children, the notion of marriage would probably never have existed.
Silly gays! A diddle and a diddle don’t make a babby! Therefore the love, romance, intimacy and experience of two gay men cannot be shared with their friends and family and their bonds cannot be recognised by the state. That diddle needs to find a fanny to make babby — a fanny attached to a woman, he’d hasten to add — and it certainly can’t adopt, because apparently penguins don’t exist.
And Bobby: “sexual intercourse between a man and a woman leads to children”? Um, I think you need to revise your highschool sex ed, because it’s a little more complicated than that. Sex leads to all kinds of things, many of them fun (but not all of them — wear a condom), and most of them provide fundamental building blocks to the relationship.
Firstly, it is true that marriage by definition is discriminatory. A homosexual cannot now legally marry. But neither can a whole lot of other people. A five-year-old boy cannot marry. Three people cannot get married to each other. A married man can’t marry another person. A child cannot marry her pet goldfish. A father cannot marry his daughter. A football team cannot enact group marriage the list is endless.
I’ve seen this gambit a few times. Say ‘why yes, it is discriminatory. You’re not letting Richie McCaw pay for the Silver Ferns, so you’re discriminatory too’ and apparently that makes it all ok.
It is disingenuous to complain about rights being taken away, when they never existed in the first place.
We’re not complaining about rights being “taken away”. We’re demanding that you allow us the same rights that everyone else enjoys to live our lives with the dignity we deserve.
You’re a white, straight, male arsehole, living in a society predominantly led by white, straight males. Who are you to tell us that discrimination is fine, or to equate homophobia with Kiri Te Kanawa not being allowed to play for the All Blacks?
[M]arriage is not solely a religious belief. Marriage is a social practice and every culture in every time and place has had some institution that resembles what we know as marriage, associated with procreation.
So? Every society defined their own rules around it. Many of them had to do with treating the bride as chattel, with her father having to pay the husband a dowry in order to take her off his hands.
Every society needs natural marriage
Marriage is not a force of nature, a fundamental law like gravity or thermodynamics. It’s not “natural”. It’s an arbitrary institution invented by humans to control who gets to breed with whom. Children don’t need to be “raised by their biological parents who are married”. They need to be raised by people who love* them in a stable environment.
By allowing only gay marriage, we would then be discriminating against those seeking open, temporary, polygamous, polyandrous, polyamorous (group), incestuous, man/boy, or bestial unions if all that counts is love and commitment.
Screw love and committment! Only if you have a cum shooter and an incubator are you allowed to marry! Because gay≡incest≡bestiality!
Also, why does he mention polyamory like it’s a bad thing?
Once the fundamental idea of marriage as one man and one woman is tossed out, all types of sexual activity could become permissible.
Um… Honey, all types of sexual activity are already permissible. Look on the internet.
I’m not going to bother with the rest. Just some statistics he’s pulled out of his arse. If he wants to persuade me, he can start by telling me how allowing same-sex couples to marry and revising our outdated adoption laws are going to send this country into a spiral of decay. He won’t because he can’t because he’s talking out of his arse.
The state – which did not invent marriage – has no authority to re-invent it.
Again, not a fundamental force. It’s not some ancient artifact to be protected and handled only with white gloves. He’s right, the state did not invent marriage, but neither did McCroskie and chums, and they do not have the authority or the right to be so fucking arrogant as to deny it from us. Society invented marriage, a long time ago, and it is society that defines what it means. As active participants in society we all have authority to re-invent marriage to include ourselves. Sure, not all of us want it as badly as others or have different ideas on how to remedy the situation, but to deny it from those of us who do is plain bigotry.
* I notice in his whole argument, he only uses the word “love” once, and only to say that our love isn’t enough to grant us marriage. I guess in his world, a family has nothing to do with “love” and everything to do with “obligation”.