The debate about redefining marriage in New Zealand (‘same-sex marriage’) has shifted in recent weeks to the threat of polygamy. I, and other conservatives, have pointed out logically and dispassionately, that the arguments used by the pro-Redefining Marriage camp can be used equally to advocate for other forms of sexuality (such as polygamy) to have the same rights within “marriage” if redefined by parliament under the Wall bill.
This has been labelled scare-mongering and hyperbole by us, but it is not.
In reaction to data from bill sponsor MP Louisa Wall comparing apples with oranges and saying polygamy and her bill are in no way linked, Bob McCoskrie and team at Protect Marriage have provided 16 examples of how polygamy is actually being considered in other places on the back of redefinition of marriage/same-sex marriage changes elsewhere (mainly Western European nations) and in the same reforming vein.
Here are three of the examples given to demonstrate this is a logical further progression to liberal social policy if we accept the criteria and arguments used currently to promote same-sex marriage/redefinition of marriage in New Zealand.
EXAMPLE 1 – CANADA: Two government studies released by Canada’s justice department in 2006 recommended the decriminalization of polygamy, with one arguing that the move was justified by the need to attract more skilled Muslim immigrants.
Canada: End polygamy ban, report urges Ottawa.
EXAMPLE 2 – CANADA: A major report issued in 2001 by the Law Commission of Canada, Beyond Conjugality: Recognizing and Supporting Close Personal Relationships, viewed marriage as a “close personal relationship” and asked whether such relationships should be “limited to two people.”Its conclusion: probably not. Although the authors of “Beyond Conjugality” are politic enough to relegate the point to footnotes, they state that they see no reason, in principle, to limit registered partnerships to two people.
EXAMPLE 3 – U.S.A.: A July 2009 Newsweek story entitled “Polyamory: the next sexual revolution” estimates that there are more than half a million “open polyamorous families” living in America.
You can read the full report and the 16 cited examples here: Protect Marriage.
What conservatives like me argue, is that liberal reforms get perpetrated by stealth and creep; one thing gets asked for, and that lays a foundation for further concessions, until we end up in a society that has abandoned historic conventions, moralities and culture that has served us well. Not everything Liberal is wrong, any more than everything conservative is good; but when debates are centered around manipulative emotional semantic games, demonizing opponents, and word-changing, you can be sure something is up.
The inconsistency of liberal arguments about redefining marriage:
Yes No
Gays should be allowed to marry because… Multiple Adults (of any sexuality) should be allowed to marry because…
- They love each other 1. They love each other
- It is discrimination to deny them 2. It is discrimination to deny them
- “Equality” is about treating everyone the same 3. “Equality” is about treating everyone the same
Silly straw man you’ve built there, John. You can do better than putting obvious falsehoods into your opponents mouths, surely?