Marriage Should Not Be Redefined

Media Release 11 May 2012
Statement by Bob McCoskrie – National Director of Family First NZ
Marriages are a matter of significant public concern, as the record of almost every culture shows. 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, and the state would not have been interested in it.

Marriage encourages the raising of children by the mother and father who conceived them. On average, children raised by their biological parents who are married have the best outcomes in health, education and income, and by far the lowest involvement with the criminal justice system. As Prominent Irish homosexual and political commentator Richard Waghorn says, this is certainly not to cast aspersions on other families, but it does underscore the importance of marriage as an institution.

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. Two old aunties living together cannot marry. A father cannot marry his adult daughter. A football team cannot enact group marriage – the list is endless. It is disingenuous to complain about rights being taken away, when they never existed in the first place.

Interestingly, nature also discriminates against same-sex couples. Same-sex couples cannot have children. Only a man and a woman can produce children. This discloses something of the purposes and providence of nature, and the necessity of the two sexes.

Ultimately, gays can get married. But they don’t want to. And that is their right.

It is also important to note that marriage 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. Every society needs natural marriage.

If the law were to allow same-sex marriage, and only same-sex marriage, we would then be discriminating against those seeking open, temporary, polygymous, polyandrous, polyamorous (group), or incestuous (adult) unions – if all that counts is love and commitment.

As Phil Goff argued at our 2011 Forum on the Family conference, same-sex couples have the option of civil unions to recognise their relationship so there is no need for redefining marriage.

Supporters of same sex marriage argue that civil unions are a 2nd-class type of marriage. But there are many same-sex advocates who argue against ‘marriage’ for same sex couples, and even suggest that the claim is hurtful to those who have deliberately chosen civil unions.

Same-sex marriage is, by definition, an oxymoron. Equality does not mean we must redefine marriage for everyone.

Being pro-marriage and wanting to maintain its definition as being between a man and a woman is not ‘anti-gay’.

Gays and lesbians do have a right to form meaningful relationships – they just don’t have a right to redefine marriage.

The state – which did not invent marriage – has no authority to re-invent it.
ENDS

Share

26 comments for “Marriage Should Not Be Redefined

  1. Chuck Bird
    10 May 2012 at 6:27 pm

    “A father cannot marry his adult daughter.”

    Some of the loopy libertarians over a Kiwiblog and Whaleoil have argued strongly this should be allowed provided the daughter consents.

    I quote David Benso-Pope 9 December 2004 , the sponsor of the Bill told Parliament during the Third Reading speech:

    “After all, what is being asked for here seems so modest. Marriage remains something available solely to a man and a woman. Civil unions offer an alternative to those unable to marry, or who do not wish to marry. Civil unions are to be a new relationship option that takes nothing from anyone else, while providing choice to people currently denied it.”

    I am sure many are concerned if homosexual marriage becomes law what is the next demand.

    Well written and balanced Bob. That is what we need to oppose this latest madness.

  2. AdVader
    11 May 2012 at 3:47 am

    come on, don’t write stupid things to pc-talk right what’s wrong, though our system&environment and the hearts&minds of people (also children!) have been pollted now for more than 50yrs with pseudological lies which femini$$m-samesex-atheism are, samesex is a disgusting taste and has nothing to do with discrimination.

  3. David Favel
    11 May 2012 at 5:08 pm

    Although I don’t think I will be as eloquent as AdVader, do you think in 50 years, people will look back on this type of discrimination and shake their heads?
    Pretty much the same as looking back at the American south of the 50’s and 60’s?

  4. AdVader
    11 May 2012 at 11:58 pm

    david, first try to understand disgusting sexual choices have nothing to do with discrimination, hope you need less than 50yrs for that 😉

  5. Chuck Bird
    12 May 2012 at 1:58 am

    AdVader. I also wonder oppose homosexual marriage – mainly because I know the next demand will be adoption. However, I wonder what you are trying to achieve with your provocative comment in response to David’s polite comment which I also have heard many times before and disagree with?

  6. AdVader
    12 May 2012 at 4:06 am

    chuck, you may think&feel what you want, try to understand samesex choices have nothing to do with discrimination.

  7. Chuck Bird
    12 May 2012 at 6:46 pm

    David, thank you for your honesty. That is one of my strongest reasons for opposing homosexual marriage.

  8. David Favel
    12 May 2012 at 10:13 pm

    Chuck, what will change?
    As you can deduce from my previous post, gays can adopt TODAY. Obviously by different methods than us hetero’s, but that reality is here now.
    Honestly I don’t share what happens with my lovely wife in the bedroom, why should I care what others are doing in theirs.
    Does it, at the end of the day, matter?
    I know gays and heteros that, in my opinion are immoral. However, the reverse is also true. Some of the gay couples of my acquaintance are in loving and committed relationships. Nice people and are harming no-one.

  9. Chuck Bird
    12 May 2012 at 11:22 pm

    David, I am not aware not aware that homosexuals can adopt in New Zealand. I am not interested in what you or your lovely wife do in the bedroom. Nor do care what homosexuals do in the bedroom. That is not the issue. For me the matter is children.

    I do not have time debate all my reasons for opposing homosexual adoption. I could send you some links but if you do not mind I will ask you a question or two.

    You some like a very nice caring heterosexual liberal who has been conned. Many people believe that homosexuals are like us but they were born attracted to the same sex and they have loving relationships much like you and your lovely wife. This may be true in very rare cases but in general it is not true.

    Whatever if to homosexuals are in a relationship they can have sex any way they like with each other and if neither of them are HIV+ there is no way they can get infected. Now if your lovely wife got in a car accident and needed a blood transfusion and you had choice of one of your nice homosexual friends donating or a “homophobe” like me or Bob who blood would you want your wife to have?

  10. David Favel
    13 May 2012 at 9:12 pm

    Sorry Chuck, there was no “reply” button below your comment.
    Would love to read your links, [email protected]

  11. 14 May 2012 at 11:30 pm

    Hi Bob – I really appreciate your blog and presentation of material in a logical way. I do not judge others for their choices not their sexual orientation, it is important to respect other people, ALL people – in the same way that it is important to respect marriage.

    Trends in the world are diminishing the importance of the family. I believe the best thing that people who advocate for family values and the sanctity of marriage can do is to be good examples of strong, loving families and marriages. Unfortunately there are some pretty bad statistics about family abuse, spousal abuse and child abuse in married, heterosexual couples. That doesn’t mean we need to change the ingredients, but that we do need to focus as a society on strengthening family relationships. supporting positive parenting, encouraging commitment, having national policies and strategies that support the family and that do not hinder the positive functioning of husband-wife families with children.

    I think it was best articulated this way (and for those of you who may not lean to a Christian framework, I think this is still valid even if you remove those references) : HUSBAND AND WIFE have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

    THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities.

    Here’s hoping that whatour country and the world use to be describe as the “nuclear family” is not completely marginalised and persecuted due to populist politics and becomes the exception, rather than the rule. Thanks again Bob, Melanie

  12. Janelle
    15 May 2012 at 12:49 am

    Brilliantly worded article Bob. You have really hit the nail on the head and what you say is so true. Well written.

  13. JPM
    15 May 2012 at 12:59 am

    Stable families produce stable societies if you want to breakdown societies then make mirage null and void. Make mommy and daddy a female or vise verse and you end up with children gender neutral. Do I need say any more???

    Great article Bob

  14. Mike keen
    15 May 2012 at 1:11 am

    We need to Pray for John Key to get saved and for c.onviction,and that he sees a the way god sees.Does what the bibile says

  15. Lois Skelton
    15 May 2012 at 5:56 am

    I wonder if it might be possible to stop pandering to the bully minority and stop abusing the word ‘gay’. Men who have sex with each other are sodomites, and most of them are anything but gay.

  16. Peter
    15 May 2012 at 6:56 am

    Good article Bob, although I did not quite understand the comment “Ultimately, gays can get married” Back in 1985 when 800,000 of us signed the petition, we were warned that this would be “the thin edge of the wedge”. Well it certainly has come true. In 1985 it was never envisaged that a time would come when homosexuality could be advocated as normal behaviour to high school students. Nor that a time would come when an openly gay person could get into Parliament. Nor that gays could take part in a civil union. Are these changes for the better? I do not think so. After all, less than 1% of the adult population live in committed same-sex relationships. Obviously, to a gay person homosexuality is considered “normal”. But why does this mean that the other 96% of the population have to regard it as normal.

  17. Bob
    15 May 2012 at 11:23 am

    What I mean is – gays CAN marry. They just need to find someone of the opposite sex! It’s not that they can’t. The law doesn’t discriminate. They just don’t want to 🙂 And that is their right

    But I don’t want to play rugby. I play soccer. So do we change the rules of rugby to soccer so that I can then say I play rugby. Of course not!

  18. 15 May 2012 at 6:56 pm

    Regarding the gutless response by our political leaders, on the definition of marriage, there is one comment I would like to make. Time we had a real Christian Party that based its policies on the Bible, and didn’t go looking for some non-bible reason for its policies.
    For example the Conservative Party, which seems to dodge and dive for cover every time the media asks it about Christian views. I think there are enough Christians (or churchy people) in NZ to support a real Christian Party, but from what I’ve heard through the media, Colin is very reluctant to make a stand on anything that connects him with the Bible.

    I think if he came out and said such things as:

    “Marriage started with the creation of the first humans. Adam and Eve, a man and a woman, were married. In Genesis God commanded a man to leave his mother and father and cleave to a woman. That was the rule from creation. The word “marriage” is a bible word, meaning one man for one woman for life.”

    “Civil unions should not be called “marriages” because this would mean redefining the word “marriage” and would then, by extension eventually allow all sorts of people of any age or sex to ‘marry’ anyone else, and even animals could be included, or family members.”

    If Colin (or some other leader) really nailed his colours to the mast and stood on what the Bible says, regardless of the derision and media roasting that would naturally come from all those atheist reporters, I think he would get more than 6% of the vote.

    Time someone stood up and stood on the Bible, and let God the Creator, Lawgiver and origin of Morals have the opportunity to be heard.
    Richard Gunther

  19. David Favel
    16 May 2012 at 12:17 am

    So, women are not allowed to speak at church? 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians
    Good luck with a literal view of the bible.

  20. Rhona MacKenzie
    16 May 2012 at 4:16 pm

    To be honest, I disagree with Chuck on the subject of adoption. I am a pro-lifer. We have always said that adoption should be encouraged so that abortion will be avoided, and if opening adoption up to homosexuals and lesbians, they may realise that the shortage of children who are able to be adopted is due to the abortion toll.

  21. Chuck Bird
    16 May 2012 at 5:23 pm

    Ronda, I beleive in dealing with the world how it is and not how you or I would like it to be. I see the two issues as totally separate. There is no chance of abortion being made illegal in NZ. It may be reduced by the efforts people like Bob by promoting marriage of a man a woman as the best and safest place for children to be raised. Putting homosexual unions on par with marriage further undermines traditional marriage.

    There is a shortage of children to adopt now and in the foreseeable future. The issue of homosexual adoption is before us now.

  22. Rhona
    16 May 2012 at 7:40 pm

    I am afraid I disagree with you again, Chuck. While the two-parent family is the preferred one for raising children, I do not think we should be forcing solo mums or pregnant women or people with large families into aborting their babies through slashing benefits. And to be honest, I don’t think that the anti-homosexuality cause is winnable. Therefore, fighting euthanasia, abortion and for pro-life issues should take priority.

  23. Chuck Bird
    17 May 2012 at 1:32 am

    “I do not think we should be forcing solo mums or pregnant women or people with large families into aborting their babies through slashing benefits”

    Some people use the same argument saying cutting benefits forces to steal or commit some other crime. No one is talking about forcing anyone to have an abortion unless you consider long term contraception the same as abortion. Also there is no force involved.

    “Therefore, fighting euthanasia, abortion and for pro-life issues should take priority.”

    How do you propose to fight abortion?

  24. Alex
    18 May 2012 at 10:14 am

    Chuck, are you serious? You say you care about children being raised in a home with two gays…

    Are you their in South Auckland, when a child is growing up in a home with no food. Or are you there in Christchurch when a child has no home. Oh sorry, you must be with the children you are living on the streets or who are living in foster care or in the care of the state.

    Mind your own children and when the time comes,I’ll watch mine with my husband. My gay-husband!

  25. Chuck Bird
    18 May 2012 at 5:31 pm

    Alex, Yes I am serious as are many others who are concerned about the welfare of children. As a matter of interest how did you vote on the anti smacking referendum?

Comments are closed.