First NZ Gay Marriage Fails in Less than a Year
MoMA has nothing against homosexual people and strongly supports their right to get on with their lives without discrimination or abuse. The history of horrible violence against gays (ongoing still in a number of countries) shows human irrationality and cruelty at its worst.
However, the pathetic performance of NZ’s first same-sex marriage couple highlights the degree to which the institution of marriage will be further trivialized and damaged by its redefinition for gays to use.
Homosexual marriages will be significantly shorter on average than heterosexual marriages, even after feminism eroded marriage to become an easily discarded self-indulgence. Gays generally do not have the same reasons to remain married that heterosexual couples have, i.e. the need to provide a nurturing, secure family for offspring to grow up in. So there is little reason for a gay couple to overcome inevitable relationship conflicts and unhappiness. The shorter marriages become on average, the more irrelevant marriage will become and the more callously it will be treated. Amending marriage laws to allow gays to feel they aren’t missing out on anything heterosexuals might have, was in itself a trivialization of what was left of the institution of marriage.
The trivializing attitude of these poster girls to their marriage commitment can be seen in this poem written by one of them:
Drink it down, laugh it off,
Avoid the drama, take chances,
And never have regrets
Because at one point everything you did
Was exactly what you wanted.
That attitude is not much different from what we see in many feminist-thinking women. “Oh that’s what I wanted yesterday but today I want something different so you dear can be discarded (except for your ongoing money) and I will decide how much if at all you can still be involved in bringing up MY children”. But that attitude will be more easily maintained in most gay marriages where there will not be the same complications.
The early failure of the first gay marriage should also sound a warning bell against insufficient caution in allowing a gay couple to adopt children. MoMA does not suggest that gay couples should be prevented from adopting children. There will be situations in which a gay couple will be the best choice from those available. For example, it may be better for a child to be adopted by a gay couple connected to the child’s family than by unrelated strangers, even with the realistic risk that the gay partnership will not be as stable. However, MoMA’s concern is that the likes of the Labiar Party are likely to legislate in such a way as to disallow consideration of the sexuality of those seeking to adopt (i.e. banning adoption authorities from discriminating on the basis of a couples’ gender composition). MoMA believes that the likelihood of earlier separation by same-sex couples should be taken into account in adoption decisions. When heterosexual and homosexual couples compete to adopt the same child and there is no other advantage evident for either couple (e.g. they are both related to the child’s family, the child gets on equally well with them, they provide comparable financial security) then the decision should be able to be based on predicted future stability of the two couples’ partnerships.