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.
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/
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?).
In the past two days two prominent Labor personalities have come out crystal clear on the idiocy of Labor’s move to the loony left, and its subservience to the Greens on issues like same-sex marriage. Both have guts, common sense, and a strong moral compass. I just wish many more of our leaders – including church leaders – would be like this.
Yesterday in the Australian former heavyweight Labor leader Barry Cohen blasted his own party for their reckless direction and their dereliction of duty. The former Hawke Government minister pulled no punches when he stated that a “tsunami-sized backlash on same-sex marriage looms”.
He continued, “I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman – full-stop. Neither my first lady nor I will budge on this and we will vote accordingly. Why? Because we believe that marriage as now defined is the basis for family life and has been for thousands of years. We want it to remain so.
“We are told everyone has the ‘right’ to marry whomsoever they wish. In fact, the ‘progressives’, as they like to describe themselves, seem to believe that they have a ‘right’ to do whatever they wish. Rights apply only to them. Does anyone have a right to have sexual relations with a 13 year old? Not when I last looked. How about polygamy and four wives or husbands. Not now, but give the “progressives” time and I have no doubt it will be proclaimed as another ‘right’. We don’t want to discriminate, do we? I could continue to list many other examples, but I’m sure you discern my drift.
“Moving forwards, as the ‘progressives’ like to say, let us ponder for a moment how human rights will affect our education system. How long will it be before the ‘progressives’ insist sex education be expanded to incorporate the glories of homosexuality and how to imbibe safely. Some will say, ‘Oh, that’s going too far.’ Some will, but others will demand it.
“Imagine dad’s reaction when little Johnny describes in graphic detail what happened in his sex education class. Choke is the word that comes to mind. Once heterosexuality and homosexuality are considered ‘natural’, how can it be otherwise?”
All three individuals are of course coming under a huge and ugly attack by the militant gaystapo. One simply has to read the poisonous and hate-drenched comments under the Age article for example to see the real demonic rage which emanates from this camp.
So I encourage all of you to support these three courageous and principled individuals. They certainly need our support at this time. They deserve heaps of praise, especially considering that most of our church leaders and celebrity pastors are not saying a word on this. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Most of these leaders who claim to be Christians are far too concerned about raking in the praises of men (and raking in their members’ hard-earned bucks). They should be shouting from the roof tops and their pulpits what God’s design for human sexuality and marriage is all about.
Instead, most remain silent – deathly silent. They are gutless wonder who will face the music one day. As Alan Sears has written recently, “It doesn’t take courage to ride the wave of support for same-sex ‘marriage.’ It takes courage to stand against the surging tide.”
Well said !
See also Bill’s book: Strained Relations: The Challenge Of Homosexuality