Marriage equality stories: 'Discrimination can be positive'

Last updated 11:04 19/09/2012

BRENT REID: The end result of 'marriage equality' is marriage for nobody.

Relevant offers

OPINION: The Marriage Amendment Bill aims to amend marriage legislation to ensure gay couples are not treated in "a discriminatory manner". Today, Wairarapa man Brent Reid, who stood as the Conservative Party Wairarapa candidate last election, discusses his view that changes brought about by the bill would render marriage "meaningless".

By BRENT REID

Louisa Wall's gay marriage bill, or in her words "Marriage Equality Bill" is said to remove discrimination from another area of society. Discrimination can be an ugly thing so removing it from all areas of society seems like a good idea. But discrimination can be a positive thing.

Under current law, to get married one has to be above the legal age of sixteen and not married to anybody else. Your potential partner cannot be too close a relative e.g. brother, sister uncle, aunt etc and you have to be of the opposite sex. Interestingly love is not a requirement under law.

If we remove the rule that says you have to be of the opposite sex, then it is only fair (fairness being a core value of the Labour Party) that all other discriminatory rules also be removed. A man could then have more than one wife.

Two fourteen-year-olds or twelve-year-olds could get married and all those relatives who fall in love with each other could tie the knot and sanction their union. This would bring about equality.

The question of equality has me puzzled. In a same sex relationship, particularly when raising kids you are essentially saying men and women are the same at either job, that is, they are equal. Not so, my wife is far superior to me, but at least I can say I'm different.

Polygamist and polyamorist (groups of men and women) as well as genetic attraction groups (brother and sister, father and daughter, mother and son in consenting incestuous sexual relationships) in Australia, the U.S and Canada are talking about marriage.

They argue that if the gays get their way then they have the "right" to marriage also. And who can deny them? To do so would be ''discriminatory, bigoted, hateful and hurtful''.

Wall says her bill is only about two people of the same sex wanting marriage, not other types of relationships. It does however pave the way for another MP in the future to introduce other bills on the same grounds.

Homosexuals often identify themselves within the wider group of GLBT - that is gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender. Following the theme of equality and anti-discrimination, then the rights of this group would have to be advanced together. Like being able to donate blood, this is another bastion of discrimination where GLBT's are unwelcome.

Once marriage equality is achieved then a couple of straight mates could get married. Brothers even! It could be useful for immigration or any other reason I haven't thought of. Or is same sex marriage for gays only? You could ask them to prove that they are gay in front of a marriage registrar, but this would be discrimination.

"I'm OK if my son is gay" Yeah Right! That's what a friend of mine said would make a great Tui billboard. It would create a lot of discussion because it says a lot about how our society really feels about homosexuality.

Do parents still have the right to teach their kids morals regarding sexual behaviour? The Bible declares, "The State giveth and the State taketh away". OK, it's not in the Bible but its close. Marriage existed long before civil government came to be. The state recognised it as good for society and gave it legal status. Same sex marriage would be a creation of the state. The difference is that one is state recognised and the other is state created.

They (homosexuals) have never desired marriage before in history. Why do they want it now? Many heterosexuals just live together. Is it to equate homosexuality with the great institutes of society, like marriage? Their struggle for 'equality', which has been very effective, is often compared to racism. But it's not quite the same. One is based on discrimination against unchangeable physical characteristics - the other on who you like to have sex with.

A farmer told me two bulls don't make a cow. The more public this discussion becomes, the more people will talk about homosexual sex. Normal or unnatural? Moral verses immoral ? Choice or not? As yet science cannot find any genetic driver.

Most opposition to the gay agenda is shut down by calling people vicious names, particularly Christians. Not much is said against the Muslim view of homosexuality. Is it because Christians are more tolerant?

Gay adoption is the next step to gay marriage. Society laments the many serious social problems to do with children, most of who are raised in fatherless homes. Kids with the best outcomes are raised in homes with a mum and dad. To say otherwise is to ignore screeds of studies and research.

Why would the state override research and deliberately create motherless and fatherless homes by allowing gays to adopt kids? This also overrides the rights of a child to a mother and father.

Marriage breakdown is a blight in our culture - to redefine marriage would render the word meaningless. When a word means everything, it means nothing - therefore why would people bother getting married? The end result would be marriage for nobody.

* Do you have a story you want to share about marriage equality? Email us on newstips@stuff.co.nz