Editorial: Is this bromance going too far?

What's the big deal with two mates tying the knot? Photo / Thinkstock

Isn't it ironic, don't you think, that the institution of marriage - which conservative types complained was under threat when gay couples were first allowed to wed a year ago - is now supposedly under attack from straight males?

The Edge radio station - never far from controversy - is giving away Rugby World Cup tickets to its listeners.

The catch is, the winners - two heterosexual men - will have to get married, to each other, to score the tickets.

Two Rotorua women who were among the first gay couples in the country to marry have hit out at the Love You Man competition, saying they're disgusted by the concept and that it's "wrong on every possible level".

"We fought so hard to have the same right and they make a parody of it."

They do have a point - it does seem a little off colour - but part of my argument for gay marriage was that if it's no skin off your nose and none of your business, why shouldn't two people be allowed to wed?

Surely the same logic applies with two mates - though I'd argue they should sign a well-thought-out pre-nup.

As the Edge has said - it's the first wedding they've done they know for sure will end in divorce.

Maybe those who can't enter because a) they're female, b) they're gay or c) they're married, have greater cause to complain.

It would be interesting to see if the same people so offended on behalf of the institution of marriage when gay people wanted the right to marry are similarly offended now that two mates are set to tie the knot. Somehow I suspect that for many their true opposition was not to a threat to the institution of marriage, but to homosexuality itself.