stellar_muddle | Moral high ground my arse... (Warning, rant button pressed)

Eyes right for the moral minority
Apparently the country's moral climate is deteriorating.
Apparently:

The main institution which defines morality in New Zealand - like all societies - is marriage, which ties adults into caring for each other and their children.

(according to the above cited article, not certain where they got that from)
If your only source and definition of morality arises from what originated as a means of property and chattel transaction (I include the woman in the chattel component), well then, you're fucked. Christian church didn't even even allow it to happen within its doors until the 12th century, and until/even then the church blessing was mainly involved in encouraging you to produce more obedient little church followers to spread the faith and plow the fields. If blind obedience and someone elses control are all you require for morality, then go for it.
It is not that I think that the ways adults care for each other and their children are not important. I think it is vital. And a degree of responsibility and discipline is required. But not in the way that the people in the article appear to be implying. For instance, an attitude towards procreation should not be casual, but that requires full information and education on sexual health, contraception and the choices available. It involves having to make an informed, supported choice to have children. It involves not bringing up women (and men) to believe that their only worth and measure is in the fact they have produced children.
And as for arguing that civil unions promote the moral decay... Certain aspects of society have decreed that the formalized bond/rubber stamp of marriage is only to be for those of opposite gender. If a stronger, more "moral" society is to be encouraged, then surely this involves strengthening the bonds and support networks between people. This would include extending the same sorts of supports to families who happen to start with a same sex couple. But according to some of the people in the article, this doesn't count as "having more time for each other", or providing "a stable relationship for children".
These formalized bonds are there for a range of purposes, but part is protection when things go wrong - formally recognising next of kin, allowing hospital access, support in case of bereavement etc. Frankly, by denying that to a certain percentage of the population, you are being selfish, unsupportive of families and entirely "me-first" and screw the rest.
Don't have time today for the decriminalization of prostitution aspect - we will ignore the hypocricy of the previous standard of it only being illegal to offer, not accept.
Also don't have the time to cut into the automatic assumption that it must be Mum at home with the kids and not half and half with Dad, for the sanity of all involved...
And frankly, the fact that the views in the article were some of the public "policy" of Graham "Do as I say, not as I do" Capill, doesn't inspire confidence.
Hypocricy like that and some of the views above are some of the reasons why I would like to boycott marriage as the one true institution, upon whose rock all of civilization and decency stands and the only way to go.
Sigh.
Tie your morality into how people care for/interact with their fellow human beings, not one form of rubber stamp on one facet.

Here endeth the rant... for now.