Thursday, May 10, 2012

Family Second: Marriage Should be Abolished

Marriage Should Be Abolished

11 May 2012

Marriage Should Be Abolished
Statement by Rob McCoskrie – National Director of Family Second NZ

Lots of cultures have had marriages. 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, because seriously who would stay married unless it was under an obligation for kids. Sure, people talk about love, but we argue that the one in seven people who are infertile, those who do not wish to have children, and those people whose children are older and have left home should have their marriages annulled since the reason behind it no longer exists. Furthermore men should abandon their wives as soon as menopause begins in order to trade her in for newer, more fertile, womb.

Marriage encourages the raising of children by the mother and father who conceived them, unlike de-facto or step relationships where parents routinely eat their children for sustenance. 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 evidenced by the fact that two incomes are being used to support them. As Prominent (so prominent as to be 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. An institution that we wish to limit to the point of abolishing it.

It is true that marriage by definition is discriminatory. For instance, marriage used to be unavailable to people from different races. We long for those days past. 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. A stapler can not marry a pair of scissors. A goat can not marry the colour blue. It is disingenuous to complain about rights being taken away, when they never existed in the first place. The civil rights movement, women wanting to vote, what on earth were they complaining about?

What I'm saying is that marriage is a slippery slope. If you have marriage you can end up with cats marrying dogs, and children marrying their parents. This is an indisputable fact. Marriage is dangerous and can lead to the breakdown of society. This is why I am calling for the end to marriage as an institution before society breaks out into a mass orgy of incestuous pedophilia.

Gays can get married. But they don’t want to. And that is their right. Except Gay people who do want to get married. Which is why I'm writing this press release. Otherwise I wouldn't need to.

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. Natural marriage as defined by me. Auburn hair only occurs in small percentage of the population. That is not natural. They also shall not marry.

If the law were to allow same-sex marriage, and only same-sex marriage, we would then be discriminating against those seeking open, temporary, polygamous, polyandrous, polyamorous (group), or incestuous (adult) unions – if all that counts is love and commitment. There is nothing, after all, more loving than a poly incestuous relationship and the only thing that is stopping society from heading down that road is legislation.

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. There may be some gay people who want to get married, but personally, I don't see the need, so they must not.

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. Many, many nameless same-sex advocates. The gay community in fact demands that marriage is not extended and I believe it is wrong that this is enforced on them.

Same-sex marriage is, by definition, an oxymoron because the meanings of words never change. Equality does not mean we must redefine marriage for everyone because that would be equal and therefore an oxymoron.

Being pro-marriage and wanting to maintain its definition as being between a man and a woman is not ‘anti-gay’, it's just pro-polyincestuouspedo because that is what marriage inevitably leads to. If you allow a man and a woman to marry who knows what kind of depravity could occur. I think about this depravity a lot.

People do have a right to form meaningful relationships – they just don’t have a right to redefine words because words are more important than people.

The state - which did not invent marriage - has no authority to re-invent it. The state therefore does no have the power to acknowledge your marriage certificate so everyone is now officially single.


Family First Press Release:


Ben said...

Great post. The LEGAL institution of marriage should be abolished. The government needs to be out of the marriage business altogether. If churches still want to practice this tradition then that's fine but it should cease being a legal bonding of two people.

Anonymous said...

nice posting.. thanks for sharing..

Dovil said...

Hi Ben, thanks for your comment! The post was a spoof take on an announcement from a religious conservative group who was trying to push forward an arguement against gay marriage. Their arguement boiled down to two issues: that gay people can't get married because that would mean the current definition of the word would change (not taking into account that poly marriages are recognised in over 50 countries and that the concept has changed over the years), and that by allowing gay people to marry it would open the door to anyone and anything also getting married. The lack of logic involved opened it up to a spoof where you could argue that if you were going to use a slippery slope arguement you needed to stop it at it's source: ie. outlaw marriage altogether.

Funnily I don't think they'd be keen on that. :)