Can you please explain to me…
If marriage can be redefined to encompass two men or two women, then surely it can also encompass three men or three women.
If it is discrimination to stop two women getting married, then surely it is also discrimination to disallow a man from marrying his daughter or his son.
And from here.
Louisa Wall’s bill cannot become law as it contains a host of serious breaches of the Bill of Rights Act 1990. For example, under its revised Schedule 2 (with all gender differences removed from the Principal Act), it will exclude many ‘loving’ couples from getting legally married, and yet the bill provides no justification for such discriminatory prohibitions. A 19-year-old homosexual male, after divorcing his same-sex ‘married’ partner, will be unable to legally marry his ex-partner’s father. (No children can come from such a ‘union’ so why the prohibition?). Under Louisa Wall’s proposed legislation, there is no rational or biological reason why two biological brothers (or sisters) who love each other should not get married if they declare their love for one another. And yet her bill prevents them from marrying. Why? (Prohibited marriages under Schedule 2 of the Principal Act are based on the issue of consanguinity of the potential offspring. However, gay couples are sterile. So why the prohibitions?).
That’s exactly what I have been thinking. If we’re going to say that a marriage between one man and one woman is old fashioned and discriminates against same-sex people, then why don’t we allow it for everyone and in any number of ways and people. But I wouldn’t be surprised if one day, 4 or 5 people who want to marry each other will be out there protesting. Our world and culture is out of order and out of hand.
Please send the questions to your friends and ask them the same…