A group is calling for the Government to consider legalising multi-partner marriages.
The group set up a Facebook page just before the Marriage Amendment Bill passed through Parliament last week, legalising gay marriage.
A statement on the page described multi-partner – or polyamorous – marriage as “responsible, adult, committed non-monogamy,” and said all committed loving relationships between adults regardless of number should be respected and given legal acknowledgement.
“Some Australian Greens have now got a lobby group going, there are several MPs around the world coming out as poly and poly-friendly and it seems the time is right to at least bring it to the attention of the New Zealand public and New Zealand parliament,” the group said.
“This will be a long-term project but with the rest of the world getting on the bandwagon legal multiple partner marriages/unions may one day be accepted.”
The “slippery slope” towards legalising polygamy, polyamory or incestuous relationships has often been an argument raised by opponents of the Marriage Amendment Bill.
In the Netherlands, the first country in the world to introduce “gay” ‘marriage’ on 1 April 2001, a Survey by Rutgers World Population Foundation, a centre of expertise on sexual and reproductive health and rights, suggests that about 500,000 people call themselves “gay”. Yet from 1 April 2001 to 2005, only 3% of them married.
So at about 2% of the population, that makes about 3% of 2% which is 0.06%. For New Zealand’s population of 4 million, we should expect (all other things being equal) only 2,400 “gay” marriages in this country. Evidently there are other reasons why the law was changed, but you will have to figure those out.
Whoever thought I would agree with the French???
PARIS, April 11, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – According to the organization Mayors for Children, approximately 14,900 French mayors will refuse to celebrate “marriages” between couples of the same sex. More than 20,000 mayors and assistant mayors have signed a petition stating, “I am opposed to the bill that opens marriage and the adoption of children by two people of the same sex.”
And every single evangelical pastor or marriage celebrant should do likewise. Let the rest of us stand firmly behind them.
It is noteworthy that when Key was asked by GayExpress “who would be go gay for?” … and “after taking a moment to compose himself” – he responded:
“‘Brad Pit. Now that he’s a bit older, he’s a bit of a looker. I was going to say Tom Cruise but someone of his age shouldn’t look that age.”
Who John Key would want to have “gay” sex with is apparently of great interest to the readers of Gay Express.
“Gay pride” necessitates anti-Christian hate. It must. “Gay marriage” and other “sexual orientation”-based laws do violence to freedom and truth. They are the hammer with which the postmodern left intends to bludgeon bloody religious liberty and the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic.
According to the unequivocal moral precepts of the Judeo-Christian tradition – explicit throughout both the Old and New Testaments – homosexual behavior is sin. Sin is evil. Homosexual behavior is the central, defining characteristic of so-called “gay marriage.” Therefore, “gay marriage” is evil. Christians are obligated to avoid sin – to “do no evil.”
And, although Mr. Wilders was eventually acquitted by his kangaroo court, the determination to place him beyond the pale is unceasing: “The far-right anti-immigration party of Geert Wilders” (The Financial Times) . . . “Far-right leader Geert Wilders” (The Guardian) . . . “Extreme right anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders” (Agence France-Presse) is “at the fringes of mainstream politics” (Time) . . . Mr. Wilders is so far out on the far-right extreme fringe that his party is the third biggest in parliament. Indeed, the present Dutch government governs only through the support of Wilders’ Party for Freedom. So he’s “extreme” and “far-right” and out on the “fringe,” but the seven parties that got far fewer votes than him are “mainstream”? That right there is a lot of what’s wrong with European political discourse and its media coverage: Maybe he only seems so “extreme” and “far-right” because they’re the ones out on the fringe.
And so a Dutch parliamentarian lands at Heathrow to fulfill a public appearance and is immediately deported by the government of a nation that was once the crucible of liberty. The British Home Office banned Mr. Wilders as a threat to “public security” — not because he was threatening any member of the public, but because prominent Muslims were threatening him: The Labour-party peer Lord Ahmed pledged to bring a 10,000-strong mob to lay siege to the House of Lords if Wilders went ahead with his speaking engagement there.
Here (from The Daily Mail):
Here’s a question shortly coming to an examination paper near you. What have mathematics, geography or science to do with homosexuality?
Nothing at all, you say? Zero marks for you, then.
For, mad as this may seem, schoolchildren are to be bombarded with homosexual references in maths, geography and science lessons as part of a Government-backed drive to promote the gay agenda.
In geography, for example, they will be told to consider why homosexuals move from the countryside to cities. In maths, they will be taught statistics through census findings about the number of homosexuals in the population.
Forces pushing for genderless marriage are a wellspring of fallacies and unanswered questions about the consequences. Let’s explore some of them.
1. What’s love got to do with it?
Nothing. Romanticizing this debate by claiming that any two people in love should have a civil right to civil marriage is a foolish distraction. Neither judges nor legislators have any business discussing “affection” as a factor in defining civil marriage. Clergy who bless marriages have a legitimate and separate role in discerning the internal dynamics of couples. But not the state.
2. What is the state’s interest in marriage?
“…So why not fathers marrying sons and moms marrying daughters? Is it because of the ‘ick’ factor? Why should that preclude it? If life comes down to who you love and who loves you back, if a father and son love each other so much they want to get married, there is little moral difference between two people of the same sex getting married who are not related and want to be and two people of the same sex who already are related becoming closer…”
Yup. Question is, will Mormons or Muslims be the first to fight the discrimination in the courts?
Louisa Wall highlighted the fact that “same-sex marriage between men was not uncommon in the days of the Roman emperor Nero”, in her First Reading speech (ref. 1) in parliament in support of her private member’s bill – the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill.
She put forward the erroneous argument that because “the civil and social institution of marriage” had [allegedly] “changed dramatically” over the period “pre-dat[ing] government and Christianity” and leading up to the present-day, as illustrated by the legalisation of homosexual marriage in Rome in the time of Nero, New Zealand MPs should therefore support her bill and embrace homosexual marriage.
Then she made the claim that for opponents of her bill to “even raise such concerns” as “polygamy, bigamy, bestiality and incest … within the context of discussion about marriage equality” [i.e. homosexual “marriage”] was “insulting” to her and those championing her bill, because such practices constituted “criminal offences” under current NZ law.
Read the full story here: www.spcs.org.nz/2013/louisa-wall-same-sex-marriage-emperor-nero-flippancy-and-bestiality/
As the Supreme Court takes up two cases regarding the legalization of same-sex “marriage,” Americans may be surprised to learn that same-sex marriage was legalized once before.
The practice of homosexuality in the Roman Empire had increased during the early years until the Romans accepted and adopted the pederasty of the Greeks (fornication with boys ages 12 to 18). Though at first the acts were considered acceptable only if the boy was a slave, the Romans eventually extended their tolerance of homosexual acts to adult men, both free and slave. Same-sex marriage, once unthinkable, was not far behind.
Early Roman poets and critics wrote about the practice, from Juvenal’s satire that mentions Gracchus, who “arrayed himself in the flounces and train and veil of a bride,” to Martial, a first-century poet who observed that homosexual marriage was not uncommon in the empire during the first century. Both Juvenal and Martial gave us accounts of men who “played the bride” in wedding ceremonies, wearing bridal veils like women.
Read the full story here: www.spcs.org.nz/2013/same-sex-marriage-the-roman-emperors/
Image courtesy of Family First New Zealand.
A former Dutch MP who was behind the first same-sex marriage legislation in the world, and brought to NZ by supporters of the same-sex marriage bill to make a submission to the Select Committee, has admitted that group marriages of three or more people is the next step.
In a video interview with a French online gay magazine, Boris Dittrich, a former Dutch MP and gay activist now working for Human Rights Watch, said the redefinition of marriage has led to discussions of allowing group marriages of three or more persons.
“But that’s the beginning of something completely new.”
He acknowledged that this next step “will take a lot of years.”
Netherlands was the first country in the world to allow same-sex marriage, in 2001. He said that in the countries where it has been created, legislators pushing for gay “marriage” started the process by promising that “civil partnerships” were as far as it would go, and that marriage would remain untouched – the exact same promises made in NZ in 2004.
“We thought it might be psychologically better to first introduce registered partnerships,” and that once “people got used to the idea that two men or two women went to the municipality, had their relationship recognised by the law. And people called it a ‘gay marriage’…. So then the next step of marriage equality, and really being equal, was a logical step.”
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?).
A California bill allowing children to have three legal parents will not help children, but instead will unnecessarily complicate their lives. The supposed need for California’s SB 1476 flowed directly from the drive to normalize same sex parenting and recognize same sex unions.
Yes, persecution is coming, and yes the state would appear to be meddling in the church (synagogue, temple, mosque) again.
So if words mean anything at all, this will mean that non-compromising/non-bow-the-knee-to-the-state churches will be in the sights of the state if they don’t bow the knee to the demands of a rabid ~1% of the population and their state meddling backers.