This is hilarious

This is hilarious September 18, 2014

Two men are marrying in New Zealand–gay activists are outraged and horrified!

Seems the guys getting married are simply heterosexual buddies who decided to make use of gays’ hard-won struggle to redefine the word “marriage” to mean whatever anybody likes in order to… well, let’s let them explain

“We are not here to insult anyone. We are here to do our own thing and travel our own path.” Mr McIntosh said the wedding was not mocking the institution of marriage.

“It’s just seeing how far two good mates would go to win a trip to the Rugby World Cup.”

Gay rights groups are aghast–aghast I say!–that these young whippersnappers are degrading the Sacred Institution of Marriage by making it be All About Them and not all about forcing everybody to pretend that a homosexual union is a marriage!

So hilarious when yesterday’s revolutionaries become today’s old fogeys. Why, when *they* were lads (last year) nobody would have *dreamed* of taking the obvious next step from redefining marriage to mean gay unions to redefining marriage to mean any possible permutation of relationship between two or more organisms. Who could possibly have seen *that* coming?

Just another scene from the culture where Consent is the Sole Criterion of the Good.

"It is remarkably easy to read the scientific studies yourself. There is no gay gene. ..."

On gays in the Church
"You are an αsshole. I bet you have HIV dementia."

On gays in the Church
"Can you prove it?I'm just using your own standards here."

On gays in the Church
"You are wrong.Throckmorton has far more credibility than you, SRGotI."

On gays in the Church

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Joseph

    Yep. Though I think a man marrying a teenage boy would have been acceptable to them.

  • orual’s kindred

    Isn’t there already a movie about something like this?

    Also, I thought “Love is love is love amen”? Friendship isn’t love? Or is this case different because the mates get to win a prize?

    • Barbara

      I know there was a Spanish film about the same scenario.

      • orual’s kindred

        Oh! I didn’t know that.

        And I had meant to reply to this sooner >.< I'm sorry, it just totally slipped my mind.

    • ImTim

      Also “I Now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry” 2007.

      • orual’s kindred

        Yeah, that’s what I was thinking of! And there was a bit more at stake in that story than winning a ticket to a World Cup.

  • James H, London

    I always knew Kiwis were rugby-crazy. This takes it to an entirely new level!

    And pretty funny, too 🙂

  • capaxdei

    Well, and it’s terribly wrong too, right? A further step down in the dissolution of a society? Which matters as much as schadenfreude, right?

    • I think that goes without saying.

      • capaxdei

        The question is, *should* it go without saying?

        People for whom it doesn’t go without saying, including people who can see no reason to oppose legalizing same sex marriage other than sheer bigotry against gays, can read this post and these comments. What do you think they will conclude if the only response good Catholics have to this story is, “Haw, haw!”?

        • Donalbain

          I don’t see how this event is a good reason to oppose legalising same sex marriage. After all, marriages of convenience occurred before they were legalised.

          • orual’s kindred

            I question the convenience of a man and a woman professing before God and Man to love and honor each other and raise a family, for reasons other than loving and honoring each other and raising a family.

            Nonetheless, I don’t think the focus here simply legalizing same-sex unions. Unless I’m mistaken, the point here is that, if the determining factor for marriage is consent, then there is no reasonable basis to fault people for holding a ceremony they have freely consented to and consider as marriage. As such, to decry what the two men in the story have done as ‘trivializing marriage’ is inconsistent, at the very least.

            • Donalbain

              Well, since neither God nor agreeing to raise a family is a necessary part of marriage, I don’t know what your point is.

              • orual’s kindred

                Well, since neither God nor agreeing to raise a family is a necessary part of marriage

                That’s what you say, I suppose 🙂

                And it does remain that the two men cannot be said to be trivializing marriage within a framework where consent is the primary criterion for marriage.

        • orual’s kindred

          I’m not Mark Shea. I do think, however, that the post in question is a blog post, in a blog where there are in-depth analyses, as well as opinions, observations, pictures pertaining to the author’s personal life, and a great deal of puns. Perhaps the news story merits a more serious, thorough treatment. However, Mark Shea opted to focus on what he finds humorous about the story, in a blog where he focuses on a lot of things which he finds humorous. I’m not sure if I should say outright that that’s wrong, or if he should have include a note stating that ‘this post is meant to be humorous and is not an in-depth essay’. I also don’t think it’s fair to say that this blog post is “the only response good Catholics have to this story” (several good Catholics have made various comments), or that or that this post can be surmised as nothing more than a “Haw, haw!” piece. As to what readers may conclude, they may conclude a lot of things, as the comments to this post demonstrate.

    • chezami

      Of course. Humor is one of my main coping method in facing cultural madness.

  • Joejoe

    Hey activists: when you fight tirelessly to make marriage mean nothing, please don’t be outraged when it turns out that people start acting like marriage means nothing.

    • Donalbain

      Is marrying for a TV morally any different than marrying to tie up some inheritance, as was common in the past?

      • LFM

        Yes it is more immoral to marry for a TV. Before the development of a free market in labour and capital (or something like it), families could only hope to rise above poverty by means of strategic marriages and carefully managed inheritances, so that perhaps, 3 generations down the line, family members might enjoy a modestly good standard of living. It’s not romantic, and it’s arguably reprehensible, but it makes sense as a way out of misery and want. Marrying for the sake of a new TV set is pure self-indulgence.

  • I know a 70 year old widow who has lived with her 50 year old daughter for 50 years (daughter never married and with no children). They share a household and love each other. They are true life partners. Shouldn’t they be entitled to marriage rights if they wish? It’s not fair. Pose this scenario to SSM supporters and they will disagree for whatever reason or just give you a blank stare because parents marrying their children is weird. SSM is not about “equal rights”, it’s about normalizing homosexuality and should not be associated with anything “weird”.

    • Jakeithus

      I know of a similar situation. I have 2 great-aunts who, after each losing their husbands, decided to live together and raise their children together. They too have been 1 true family for close to 30 years now, but of course no one cares if they qualify for equal legal recognition of said relationship.

      Having my dad explain this to me as a young man at the start of the whole push for same-sex marriage was extremely influential in developing my own position on this subject. Apparently sex and romantic love are the only things which are important, which is ironic, considering supporters often say the state should have no business in people’s bedrooms.

      • Hi Jake, your aunts are another good example.
        “Apparently sex and romantic love are the only things which are important”
        which begs the question, why is the government in the marriage business then? Does the government care who you “love”? The rational basis for secular marriage is procreation. Marriage defined the way humans reproduce (male/female) is not just some odd coincidence.

        • wlinden

          That is not what “begging the question” means….

      • Heather

        In the Canadian province of Alberta, there actually is legal recognition for adults living together long term in a financially interdependent relationship that doesn’t depend on whether or not the relationship is a sexual one. I wish other places would copy them. My best friend and I have lived as a household for close to 10 years now and we fully anticipate retiring as dotty old maids together, but because we aren’t willing to lie and say we are in a “conjugal” relationship, legally our relationship has no more status than that of short term college roommates.

        • Jakeithus

          Heather,

          That’s actually very interesting. I and my family live in Alberta, and I wasn’t personally aware of the piece of legislation until now. In my mind, if the state is more concerned about the sexual and romantic aspects of a relationship, rather than the procreative (which is the whole reason for the state to be involved at all), then the entire system should be scrapped and replaced with something open to any individuals to take part in.

          To this day I still regret that the conservative/traditionalist side in Canada fought against same sex marriage, rather than fighting to get the state out of the marriage business all together.

          • LFM

            Marriage is, among other things, a widely-recognised form of contractual arrangement in which the duties and responsibilities of the contractors are more or less understood by all without having to be legally spelled out in an actual contract. This kind of “understood” or implicit contract is a good thing in the context of marital arrangements because institutions like marriage need to be broadly similar and understood as such by all who participate in them if they are to serve their function, which is the creation of stable families, a function that is beneficial both to communities and to the State.

            The State stepped in to this system partly in order to remove the Church’s monopoly on the institution of marriage for those who did not want to marry in the Church. More importantly, in this context, the State was in any case the ultimate arbiter when marriages broke down because it was the body that enforced laws regarding property and child custody. From the perspective of civil law, it makes a kind of sense that the institution that adjudicates at the breakdown of a contract might also preside over and even develop ceremonies for the creation of that contract, i.e. civil marriage ceremonies.

            You can remove the State from this system at the front end – presiding over the solemnization of a marriage – but the State would still be obliged to involve itself in the event of marital breakdown, because – to repeat myself – no other social institution has the power to enforce custody and property laws. Besides, it is likely that so dramatic a change in social custom as the abolition of civil marriage ceremonies – which is what “getting the State out of the marriage business” would entail – would have a deleterious effect on marriage in general.

            It is in the interest of civil society to have a more or less common understanding of what marriage is, and how it functions. If you reduce marriage to a private arrangement (contractual or otherwise) between individuals, it will lose that common understanding. It is indeed already doing so, under the aegis of gay activists and all the exceptions and special conditions that must be written into the law for the benefit of same-sex married couples.

            p.s. It wouldn’t have mattered how we fought against same-sex marriage here anyway. In Canada it was achieved, after all, by the fact of “Conservative” MPs choosing to absent themselves from Parliament on the day of the vote for or against it, so that the Nos lost. We didn’t even get to argue the thing on its legal merits.

            [Edited for clarity 11:22 p.m. Sunday September 21.]

            • I confess I find myself uncomfortable with any such suggestion. As it seems to me, marriage is not a Christian thing. It is a natural thing – and it is the foundation of society.

              To be sure, Christ has raised marriage to a Sacrament – but I think any society that tries to make a fundamental distinction between Christian and civil marriage is in trouble.

              I am aware that C. S. Lewis advocated such a distinction. I just can’t find myself thinking it a good idea.

              The current situation here in New Zealand is that ‘gay marriage’ is legal. I think this is what happens when the State starts deciding what is and what is not marriage. It seems to me essential that the State continue to sanction marriage, and that it be what marriage actually is – lifelong, open to children, exclusive. Thus I think the slow erosion of these – the loss of laws against adultery, against artificial contraception, favouring easy divorce – are all a part of the loss of State-sanctioned marriage. I think these things are disastrous for society.

              jj

          • cmfe

            I’ve said the same thing. Let the state issue “domestic partnerships”, but if you want to get married, go to a church.

  • masterhibb

    Here’s my favorite quote from the article:

    “LegaliseLove Aotearoa Wellington co-chairman Joseph Habgood said the competition attacked the legitimacy of same-sex marriages.”

    SSM advocate groups like his have vehemently asserted for years that same-sex marriages had zero effect on the legitimacy of traditional marriages. When traditional marriage defenders asserted SSM was an attack on the institution of marriage, their pundits and supporters assured us in no uncertain terms that allowing two men to get married wouldn’t affect existing marriages one single iota.

    They changed their tune on that one astonishingly quickly.

    Almost like they never believed it in the first place.

  • Back when we (New Zealand) first did the ‘civil union’ bit, several court cases were heard which decreed that, say, two sisters living together could not get ‘civil union’ status (which bestowed some financial benefits; not sure what).

    Mark referred to the culture where ‘Consent is the Sole Criterion of the Good’ – perhaps it is rather ‘Genital Activity is the Sole Criterion of the Good.’

    jj

  • Donalbain

    A marriage of convienience?!?! Why that NEVER happened before!