MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

What’s bad about gay marriage?

Filed under: General — triassic @ 1:52 am Fri 11th September 2015

Help me here please! There must be something about the above debate I just can’t get. Marriage is a tradition from the earliest societies when humans had developed the cognisance to understand the importance of creating a safe environment for their offspring to develop in. Couples, of opposite sex, were the only ones able to create children. That’s what made marriage such a strong and sacrosanct institution. WTF has marriage got to do with benefiting adults at all? It is an institution that demands responsibility and accountability in order to protect the children and not, as is often put forward, to show love between couples.

Once again I see signs that the needs of children are being neglected in favour of catering to the desires of adults. This debate has zip to do with morality and everything to do with raising happy children. I haven’t the time to write more but if you take the time to debate this subject you will find that many of the weak and often invalid arguments put forward for gay marriage have the same roots as those used by feminists to justify their pernicious ideology.


  1. The first point I would like to make is that gay men are also men, and as such their challenges and issues should be respected as much as any other in a mens rights forum. This is becomming the mainstream MRA position internationally (AVFM, NCoM, JfMB).
    The question of public support for gay and lesbian marriage seems to hinge on the concept that these people are individuals who wish to claim a right, one that has no negative impacts for anyone outside their union, ie why would I want to stop you from being happy unless your rights infringe upon mine?

    Understand that there are really only two sides investing money into this debate, and its propoganda. The conservative side paints marriage as if there is one continuous stream from god (even when they neglect to mention the religion) that all people could get married and procreate, and marriage sorted out property rights and responsibilities for the family and generations. The LBGT side paint it solely as a love match between two people that spiritually is consistant and the state later sanctions this as a contract with rights to property and decisions when your partner is incapable.
    Both have elements of truth and both are also wrong.
    Marriage in law traditionally has been reserved for the upper classes or property owners. Peasants generally just moved in and out of each others houses and were recgnised by friends and family only (men kept the kids by presumption. BTW). Only with the upper class was genetic heraditry important, and always focused on the wife. And this is where the state came in with marriage laws in line with the religion of the time (so pagan, jewish, christian, hindu all have different laws).
    Within other pair bonds the most famous gay one was the ‘hereos of thebes’ who were recognised within thier society, however held no individual possesions, so whats the point of a contract to protect these?
    Spartans also married formally. but did not live with their wives (the challange was to sneak in for a visit without being caught) and while the mother cared for the boys untill 7yo then they were turned over to the tribe aka military acadamy.
    Many others including Jewish and Islam practiced poligamy, again only for upper class who could support non working women.

    While it is true that our traditional family offers many advantages to children, this cannot be assumed to be the reason for marriage. Remember also that a lot of this advantage dissappears with the larger family types common pre contraception. Most, if not all modern marriages start with a loving couple ie adults, and their claims to speak with/for the other partner. If they started with children perhaps we may see a greater tolerance for arranged marriages and less tolerance for divorce.

    I only hope to illustrate that marriage is defined by each new society that inherites the tradition, and then the state responds. In our society we have decided that the church no longer gets to dictate, and all members of society should be able make any arrangement they see fit that does not broach anothers rights (ie forced marriage).

    Comment by JnF — Sun 13th September 2015 @ 9:53 pm

  2. Thanks for your reply and the historical perspective JnF. The Ministry of Men’s Affairs welcomes and supports gay men and abhors the superstition and violence that societies and their laws have perpetrated on them. The harsher treatment of gay men compared with lesbian women was another example of misandry.

    There may be only two sides investing money in the gay marriage debate but there are certainly many other viewpoints that don’t fit neatly into either side.

    While marriage may have had different characteristics ‘traditionally’, in our cultures within our lifetimes and several generations before, marriage was the major commitment in preparation for producing and raising a family.

    Gay marriage will have an impact on the nature and meaning of marriage itself, and that could be a valid consideration. That impact is unlikely to improve respect for or gravity of the institution of marriage or society’s view of it as being important for providing a secure family to children. One of the reasons the impact of gay marriage is unlikely to improve the institution is that statistics show that gay relationships last even shorter than heterosexual relationships and that gays are more promiscuous than heterosexuals, so we can expect gay marriages to increase the fashionable trend of treating marriage as a readily disposable and otherwise irrelevant contract. That’s not to say that no gay marriages will remain intact for long periods or will honour commitments of sexual fidelity that the couple made.

    Aside from all that though, if heterosexual marriage actually involved any real, enforceable contract, if it had not already been eroded through feminism (demanding and getting no-fault divorce, no-penalty breaches of the marital promises such that the state defends the right of people to cheat sexually on their spouses and punishes spouses, well male ones anyway, who dare to object to being cheated on), and if it still had any positive role in maintaining the integrity of families, then gay marriage may be seen as causing unacceptable damage to that institution. As it happens, marriage has already been degraded so much it really makes little difference who does what with it.

    Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Mon 14th September 2015 @ 12:10 am

  3. I think the last sentance is a reflection of a lot of the more conservative liberterian thought from the US, that it is odd that a marriage contract is the only contract that is legally unenforcable, and one only knows the penaty for breach of contract after the court case is settled.

    Personally I am in a common law marriage (thanks to aunty Helen). The relationships property act, providing support for your proposition, entitlements to property being after 3 years or 1 one year with children. personally I have seen no need to tell the state our relationship status, or to sign a paper that to me means very little (yet to others mesns a great deal). This arrangement has lasted 12 years, longer than a lot of formal marriages. One thing we have always had is an exit to any relationship, based on an idea that you should want to be with your partner rather than commited by a promise made in a different headspace (ie a granny flat and both seperate and joint accounts).

    A marriage for me then starts with a committed loving couple, who plan to spend their life together, and make decisions when incapacitated, overseas, in a coma or for a funeral etc. There must be an exit, especially when abuse is ongoing, but also when this commitment turns sour. I wish I could say it is easy to split up and maintain the relationships with the children, most however do seem to come to a ‘reasonable’ arrangement. And this is why I see the relationship as an adult one, seperate from responsibilities to children, we need an exit from bad marriages, but the bar should also be much higher when “divorcing” parents from their children (or their obligations to the other partner regarding decisions about the children).
    For the state to enter into “at fault” determiniation would seem to me counterproductive to this ongoing relationship.

    To enforce the contract then denigrates the bond from one of ‘being chosen’ to one of ‘being obligated’, akin to forced marriage. (The same would go for excessivly long notice periods in employment).

    It may be apparent now that one thing eludes me. I understand being committed to a partner but not to a contract. Can anyone tell me what legal rights are still enjoyed by formally married couples that are not enjoyed by defacto or civil union couples?

    Comment by JnF — Mon 14th September 2015 @ 2:05 pm

  4. Can anyone tell me what legal rights are still enjoyed by formally married couples that are not enjoyed by de facto or civil union couples?

    In UK 30 years ago, I enquired about the tax comparison.

    Married got only 1 mortgage interest tax exemption and the same if a de facto couple admitted their relationship.

    If a de facto couple denied that they were in a relationship and presented themselves as just flatmates, then each could get a mortgage interest tax deduction.

    The difference in tax treatments was worth about 8 pounds a day (or night??) after tax. The implication was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer believed that married sex was worth 8 pounds a night. (An economist would point out that it was worth that, whether you actually had it or not? That calls into question the quality of the thinking behind it.)

    Another way of looking at the same situation could be:

    A long term married couple through their stability offer better upbringing to their children and that is probably worth nearer to 80 pounds a night in saved costs of prisons, long term higher taxes paid by the children, better social environment for other citizens in the country.

    Surely, part of that benefit could be given back to the married couple, to encourage them to serve their country well…….

    I watched this perverse incentive for many years…..

    Stasticians noted that the census asked about relationships, as well as the tax department. By comparing statistics, a contrast could be seen. 30 years ago, the difference was under 10,000 differences. About 2005, the differences had climber to just over 1,000,000. At that point, the UK Government could no longer keep its head in the sand and describe the difference as a statistical anomaly. So it put it under dirt instead!

    So, over many years, many hundreds of thousands of UK citizens have said, I will not be penalised by an unjust law and took sensible care of themselves and their wallets.

    As I was already married, I couldn’t undo my sin and get back to the single status. Oh no. I thought about suing the minister who married us? In the end, we left for other reasons…

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 14th September 2015 @ 2:34 pm

  5. Income splitting was the most common form of incentive and I believe that this may opperate(or may have till comparativly recently) in some US states and conservative european regeimes (ie the ones with christian democratic parties). However much Peter Dunne has tried to push this in NZ there is this theory that a battered wife will find it more difficult to leave if there is financial or other advantages to marriage, and so any advantage of marriage must be removed for all couples just in case they are in the minority of worst cases.

    Comment by JnF — Mon 14th September 2015 @ 4:07 pm

  6. To understand this debate you have to get your head around the end-game of civil society.

    If you look at the English decision I posted last year, from one of the Law Lords, it basically says a child exists in the confines of their parents as long as the parents don’t break ‘The Law’.

    Marriage is inconsequential to ‘The Law’.

    People ‘want’ to get married – sure we’ll have a law that says two people can get married – end of story, you got what you wanted.

    The Civil Sovereign doesn’t give marriage any legal value, because marriage is not, ‘The Law’.

    The Civil Sovereign doesn’t give a shit what side of the debate you’re on …

    Once again I see signs that the needs of children are being neglected in favour of catering to the desires of adults.

    That’s exactly right, because the needs of the children are enshrined in ‘The Law’ as per the Civil Sovereign, not in marriage.

    Comment by Downunder — Tue 15th September 2015 @ 12:16 pm

  7. This debate has zip to do with morality and everything to do with raising happy children.

    Your moral responsibilities are embodied in religion, your legal responsibilities are determined by law.

    Comment by Downunder — Tue 15th September 2015 @ 12:57 pm

  8. Karen Straughn also had a video dealing with the states responsibility to ensure protection of all children, evolving from the responsibilities of the kings to cares for oprhaned children of the nobles required to fight. The wards of the king to wards of the state and passing onto the judiciary “parental rights and obligations” over all children in the realm. Thus they can (and have to) remove children from their living space if its unsafe and place them where they believe it will be safe.

    Comment by JnF — Tue 15th September 2015 @ 6:26 pm

  9. Bringing children into the debate is the same emotive claptrap that politicians use.

    The essence comes down to whether marriage is about sex or reproduction.

    Do we exist into order to have sexual fulfilment or to reproduce and survive.

    You could be cynical and say we all fuck ourselves silly but as a consequence only some of us will reproduce ourselves.

    But if the law is to be as smart as human nature, why would it favour 1% of any species.

    Comment by Downunder — Tue 15th September 2015 @ 10:18 pm

  10. Just wondering if anyone realises there is unlimited types and definitions of ‘law’ and it is normally dictated by psychopaths whom we allow to ‘lead’ us……one would be far better concentrating on unalienable and inherent rights of man and punishments for breaches of such being largely up to the victim’ whose rights have been breached as agreed by a trial by jury.

    THE REALITY IS, ONLY cowards and paedophiles and psychopaths think its ok to kidnap children from the parents right to 5050 PARENTING. THE POLICE AND JUDGES AND ‘GOVT’ ARE SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE I AM TALKING ABOUT. they kidnap and torture people for a living! You Should be very suspicious aobut any one of these who say they enjoy their job. i wonder How many men and childen have they kidnapped and driven to suicide or murdered themselves in ‘accidents’?

    Comment by The Logical Song — Wed 16th September 2015 @ 8:26 am

  11. #10 Logical Song

    Judge Boshier for example?
    Chief Family Court Judge for 8 years. Responsible for what they do?
    Admits that 20 males commit suicide each year during the ‘proceedings’ stage of relationship breakdown etc.
    By admission. 20 times 8 is 160 deaths.

    Yes they are mass murderers.

    That is of course a drop in the bucket of the overall slaughter of men. Trying to get data on influence on suicide rates based on victims, association to a family court case, would be a nightmare.
    Easy to find out if they wanted to, but as you can imagine the last thing they would like to do is investigate reality.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 16th September 2015 @ 9:02 am

  12. JnF
    Thanx for your interesting input to the post. Are you an academic in the Social Sciences at all? Can I ask you the same question Downunder? Not that acedemia would make you an expert (X being the unknown quantity and spurt being a drip under pressure) 🙂 on the subject but is more likely to give me confidence in your research and opinion which I found educational.

    From my POV, whilst the state always harps on about protecting children, I see very little of this in action. Even the anti smacking law (a tightening of section 59) infringed on the tools that the majority of good parents and caregivers can use to discipline their children. Logic states that not all children need physical pain for discipline but ask any teacher how well they get on with delinquent kids in class these days.

    Most on this site who have children and been through the family court will have experienced psuedo child care from judges that makes your jaw drop. It is transparent that the mothers are at the core of interest and the State is unashamed in its stance.

    A bit of humour for you….. Many years ago when the anti smacking law was going through parliament I would sometimes find myself amongst a group of pro-law changers. I would then compliment them on their stance and that as a father of 2 well adjusted teenage children I found that discipline and obedience could be obtained through other superior methods. By using high voltage low current shocks I was able to obtain compliance. However, if that failed then I would advise the kids that unless there was an improvement in their behaviour I would take my life and that of their mothers. I always found the responses interesting. Those who were unable to think for themselves just went very quiet and offered no sign of their disgust until I let them know I was only joking and illustrating how complex the issue was and how laws were sometimes unable to have the positive outcome promised and often creating a negative. Those who were of a higher cognicsance would see it immediately as a joke but then state that law would give a message to society of the values we hold. IMO they miss the point.

    Comment by triassic — Wed 16th September 2015 @ 11:48 am

  13. Highly qualified, Triassic … yeah … I’ve got an opinion, and a bad attitude.

    Comment by Downunder — Wed 16th September 2015 @ 3:09 pm

  14. I have not heard a single argument in favour of gay marriage that would not also equally apply to polygamous marriages.

    That said, all those trying to stop gay marriage have missed the boat in my view.
    Where were they when marriage was torn apart and become a meaningless one sided contract by feminists?
    Far, far too late now to tell me about how important marriage was for society. You should have saved it when it still existed.

    What we have now is Marriage 2.0. I don’t see how any of your arguements against gay marriage really apply to Marriage 2.0. What difference would it make who gets married now?
    Gays should be allowed to suffer as much as the rest of us.

    In fact once more lesbians and gays get screwed over in divorce, I only see that adding to the voices pointing out the one sided nature of Marriage 2.0.

    My main beef with gay marriage is that, either marriage is a discriminatory special status or it is not. If it is about equality then surely any bunch of adults should be able to enter into that contract. Either marriage is only for specific people under specific circumstances or any adults can marry.

    In my view it’s either one or the other. I’d say Marriage 1.0 died decades ago and the conservatives sat by at let it die. Forgive me if I don’t rush to your support decades after the battle has already been lost. What is it about Marriage 2.0 that is worth saving? Nothing. You should have thought about that while you were being a white knight to ‘oppressed women’ for the last 40 years.

    Comment by Vman — Thu 24th September 2015 @ 7:39 pm

  15. Vman,
    Excellent writing on you MOJ submission!

    I’ve sat in a cell falsely accused and I’m grateful to others that are able to recognise these problems and write about them.

    Great work…

    Comment by voices back from the bush — Thu 24th September 2015 @ 8:13 pm

  16. My main beef with gay marriage is that, either marriage is a discriminatory special status or it is not. If it is about equality then surely any bunch of adults should be able to enter into that contract. Either marriage is only for specific people under specific circumstances or any adults can marry.

    A contract is between two or more parties, or in the case of marriage, as we know it, two parties … or historically two families.

    It is not a discriminatory status, but a voluntary status, in this day and age.

    But, how can marriage be a contract when it is subject to the laws of politicians?

    Comment by Downunder — Thu 24th September 2015 @ 8:31 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar