Family First NZ is calling for the National, Labour and Green party to state where they stand on the issue of redefining marriage to allow polygamy and polyamory.
“Polygamy and polyamory have been added to the same-sex marriage debate in Australia because the ‘discrimination’ argument being used to argue for allowing same-sex marriage also applies to any number of adults who love each other and want their relationships recognised,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “At the moment, the New Zealand marriage law does discriminate against three or more people getting married, or a married person marrying another person.”
“If the definition of marriage was extended to allow same-sex marriage, and only same-sex marriage, it could then be argued that we are discriminating against those seeking polygamous, polyamorous, or adult incestuous unions – if all that matters is love and commitment. If we are going to have a debate about same-sex marriage and liberalising adoption laws, it is essential that the politicians acknowledge just how far this is going to go, and what relationships will continue to be discriminated against,” says Mr McCoskrie.
No surprises about where these arguments are going to go in the future.
If the state can not longer discriminate against queer marriage, then how can it possibly discriminate against polysexual and pansexual marriages? Or discriminate against Marc Glasby’s twin-sisters polygamous ‘marriage’?
On the funnies level: Just imagine the tax department performing calculations for the family where mum and mum have a state-recognized marriage, and they are having a consensual incestuous state-recognized pansexual relationship with their fatherless sperm-donored 18 and 16 year old sons.
Read the rest here.
- The Australian Greens have declared they have a clear policy to discriminate against polyamorous marriage. Well, actually not much to see. Interesting to note though that New Zealand Greens policy requires two party leaders, one of each gender. I wonder how that is not discriminatory?