Marriage about purpose, not rights – Opinion – by Bob McCoskrie – national director of Family First NZ – a registered charity with the Charities Commission – writes:
DEBORAH RUSSELL, (“Marriage should be for all”, October 21, Dominion Post) says the state has no business in the marriage game, but then argues that the state should redefine marriage to allow same-sex marriage.
Marriages are a matter of significant public concern, as the record of almost every culture shows.
If it weren’t for the fact that sexual intercourse between a man and a woman leads to children and brings with it a further obligation to care for tose children, the notion of marriage would probably never have existed.
Marriage encourages the raising of children by the mother and father who conceived them. Onn average, children raised by their biological parents who are married have the best outcomes in health, education and income, and by far the lowest involvement with the criminal justice system.
Russell then argues that denying same-sex marriage is “discriminatory” and “reinforces the power of traditional churches by endorcing their morality”.
Firstly, it is true that marriage by definition is discriminatory. A homosexual cannot now legally marry. But neither can a wholelot of other people. A five-year-old boy cannot marry. Three people cannot get married to each other. A married man can’t marry another person. A child cannot marry her pet goldfish. A football team cannot enact group marriage – the list is endless. It is disingenuous to complain to complain about rights being taken away, when they never existed in the first place. It is like trying to argue that Kiri te Kanawa is being discriminated against since she cannot play for the All Blacks, or Richie McCaw can’t play for the Silver Ferns.