FEBRUARY 2012 - ISSUE 01 - Massive Magazine

06DEBATEDEBATESHOULD SAME-SEXMARRIAGE BECOMELEGAL IN NEW ZEALAND?THE STATE HAS NO AUTHORITY TOREINVENT MARRIAGEBob McCoskrie – National Director, Family First NZThe state did not invent marriage. It has no authority tore-invent it.Marriage is not a state invention. It is instructed by nature, reinforcedby religion and normally protected by the state. Marriageis a universal and natural social practice. Every culture has had someinstitution that resembles what we know as marriage associated withprocreation. Every society needs marriage.Marriage is the only institution we have that creates an area of socialreality independent of state control. The legalisation of same-sexmarriage would turn the most intimate of human relationships into alegal and political construct.Marriage is a matter of critical public concern as the record of almostevery culture shows. It is about a great deal more than love andcommitment. If sexual intercourse between a man and a woman didnot normatively lead to children and bring with it a further obligation tocare for those children, marriage might not have existed. That somemarried couples cannot or choose not to have children says nothingabout the role or status of marriage.Marriage encourages the raising of children by the mother and fatherwho conceived them. On average, children raised by their biologicalparents who are married have the best outcomes in health,education and income, and by far the lowest involvement with thecriminal justice system.Marriage is normatively and necessarily discriminatory. A homosexualcannot legally marry. But neither can a whole lot of other people.A five-year old boy cannot marry. Three people cannot get married toeach other. A married man can’t marry another person. A child cannotmarry her pet goldfish. A father cannot marry his daughter. A footballteam cannot enact group marriage - the list is endless. It is disingenuousto complain about rights being taken away, when they neverexisted in the first place.It is like trying to argue that Kiri te Kanawa is being discriminatedagainst since she cannot play for the All Blacks, or Richie McCawcan’t play for the Silver Ferns.If we were to allow same-sex marriage we would still be discriminatingagainst those seeking open, temporary, polygamous, polyandrous,polyamorous (group), incestuous and man/boy unions. Oncethe fundamental idea of marriage as one man and one woman istossed out, all types of sexual activity could become permissible.Same-sex couples have the option of civil unions to recognise theirrelationship so there is no need to redefine marriage. Same-sex marriageis, by definition, an oxymoron. Everyone has a right to form alegal meaningful relationship. No one has the right, or even a coherentargument, to redefine marriage.The state did not invent marriage. It has no authority to re-invent it.PEOPLE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO LOVEAND DECIDE FOR THEMSELVESJimmy Jansen – Uni-Q Wellington“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is anabomination” (Leviticus, 18:22).hank God the Old Testament is not legally binding. Homosexuality,despite being a mortal sin, is not a demonic manifestation ofTpersonal corruption or parental negligence, but a naturally occurringsexual preference expressed through sex and character. In a contemporaryworld, marriage, though laced in moral, religious and legal implications(ask any divorcee), is an expression of love. Gay marriage isno different and should not only be legalised, but celebrated.Without undermining the Christian faith, Leviticus 18:22, is a perfectexample of misguided thinking. “Abomination”, the word used, translatesinto “unclean,” a word also used to describe the consumption ofpork (sinful bacon?) in the same chapter.Suffice to say, Leviticus cannot be taken seriously these days. Otherverses in the Bible condemning homosexuality are equally questionable.Bearing this mind, how is it that such dated scripture features sostrongly in some contemporary churches?Prejudice, governed by blind faith, about gay marriage, is merelyignorance of a minority group. Religious or not, people fear, dislike,and subsequently reject what is different to them. And biblical echoesof damnation don’t exactly pave the way for social enlightenment.Without judging society too harshly, a significant portion of theworld has embraced “Civil Unions” as a substitute. Though this allowshomosexuals to register as a couple, civil unions are limited.The degree of restriction varies between countries. In New Zealand,civil unions share the same perks as marriage with the exception ofjoint adoption. Obviously, homosexual couples can’t just pop out acouple of kids, thus limiting them to surrogacy, sperm donors, andadoption. Restricting adoption, despite there being plenty of unlovedchildren, often makes having a family impossible for same-sex couples.While some people dismiss marriage as a social construct of thechurch, gay marriage is about equality and what is fair. Refusing homosexualsthe right to love and marry who they want underminesthem as citizens. Discriminating against gay marriage refuses, by extension,the reality of gay love.Gay marriage, despite the propaganda, is not an attack on humanityand would not have global consequences although certain unnamedreligious leaders in Rome would have you believe otherwise.Allowing people, as they have for thousands of years, to expresstheir love by “making it official” is a basic human right. Regardless ofindividual hatred and distain, people should be allowed to love anddecide for themselves.Oppression is the product of stupidity. Liberation is intelligent success.Gay marriage should be legal. Otherwise, by all means, deny usour civil rights, but exempt us from other social obligations like taxes.It seems only fair.