Marriage in the United States

January 8th, 2010 at 1:07 pm by David Farrar

Tags: , ,

122 Responses to “Marriage in the United States”

  1. whalehunter (467 comments) says:

    states that allow marriage to two wives.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Jack5 (4,591 comments) says:

    Does NZ allow first cousins to marry?

    If so might account for some of the weirdos in places like the Ureweras.

    Before anyone mouths off about the deep south, consider that most of the ferals in the south are from the inbreeding of old hippies etc. Most of those barefoot, dope-smoking originals escaped from Auckland and Wellington suburbia.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    Actually think in a few of those states marriage between cousins is more of a requirement than an option.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Poliwatch (335 comments) says:

    Jack5 – why are you so sensitive about the feral types in the deep south?

    Actually by the look of the map above it seems that feral types seem to be more prevalent in the deep south of the US as well as NZ – is there a common issue here?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. big bruv (13,311 comments) says:

    “If so might account for some of the weirdos in places like the Ureweras.”

    And Canterbury.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Jack5 (4,591 comments) says:

    Poliwatch:

    You may have something. Kyle Chapman, the part-Maori survivalist and ultra-right leader, sprang to light in Southland after an attack on a southern marae. Haven’t heard of the KKK in the south though.

    You would have to say the Harawiras in politics, and the Maori gangs in crime, are the country’s real ferals at the moment, though, wouldn’t you? And they all be god dam northenas.

    Big Bruv: come down to Christchurch and tell that to the Harrises. I’ll give you the address. Tell me where you want your ashes sent.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Ross Nixon (607 comments) says:

    Why are they calling same-sex civil unions ‘marriage’?
    Is this to give it an air of respectability?

    Marriage is between a man and woman.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 87 Thumb down 66 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Steve (4,499 comments) says:

    Well goooolleee, who woulda thunk it?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Inventory2 (10,100 comments) says:

    Good point Ross. It galls me to hear the likes of Tim Barnett and Chris Carter talking about their marriages, when patently they were not. As MP’s who pushed the Civil Unions Act through Parliament, they should know better than anyone that a Civil Union is NOT the same as a marriage. It’s a deliberate and dishonest use of the terminolgy in order to make all us 3.75 million homophobes see things through gay lenses.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 76 Thumb down 36 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. andrei (2,504 comments) says:

    Well in New Zealand a may not marry is Grandmother’s civil union partner but may marry his first cousin.

    Gosh I never realized we were such hillbillies.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. CharlieBrown (909 comments) says:

    Hehe, in some New England states a guy could marry his male cousin… the movie deliverance springs to mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    As MP’s who pushed the Civil Unions Act through Parliament, they should know better than anyone that a Civil Union is NOT the same as a marriage.

    So where does all the “this will undermine the institution of marriage..” opposition spring from?

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Jeremy Harris (323 comments) says:

    Charles Darwin married his first cousin, so hillbillies and geniuses it seems…

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. CharlieBrown (909 comments) says:

    Civil Unions are effectively marriages. My personal opinion is that a marriage not done in the name of god sits on the same level as a civil union. Both should be respected as they signal commitment to each other, however in my opinion aren’t the same as being married under god. Although, the law should treat all three the same gay marriage allowed with civil unions and the legality of de facto relationships abolished.

    Churches should be free to choose who they can and cannot marry or have preach however we shouldn’t be prohibiting any people committed to each other to make that commitment legal.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 32 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. BK Drinkwater (20 comments) says:

    @Ross @Inventory

    New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachussets, and Vermont have gay marriage, as in not civil unions. (As does the Coquille Tribe in Oregon, and probably Washington DC soon).

    Vermont, Connecticut, and New Hampshire have at various points had civil unions, but now have same-sex marriage instead. (CT and NH either converted or will soon convert existing same-sex civil unions into marriages.) New Jersey has civil unions.

    So I’m guessing, and I may be going out on a limb here, that it’s called marriage in the map legend above because, legally, that’s what it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Jack5 (4,591 comments) says:

    Jeremy Harris posted at 2.06:

    Charles Darwin married his first cousin, so hillbillies and geniuses it seems…

    Adam and Eve’s grandchildren, too.

    Creationists into it as well as evolutionists.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. mjanderson (39 comments) says:

    @CharlieBrown
    Nail on the head, I don’t see why that is not the accepted norm!

    Keep the wording different, but have the same legal effect and rights. So Simple.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Rufus (621 comments) says:

    David -

    interesting, but what’s your point?

    peace,
    Rufus

    [DPF: Just fomenting mischief]

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. fishe (143 comments) says:

    @CharlieBrown, agreed.

    I think the state should get out of the marriage game completely. The state should only offer civil unions, which are binding in a legal/financial sense. After this, people can go and have whatever other ceremony/tradition they desire.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. fishe (143 comments) says:

    @mjanderson, well it would be that simple, but you seem to be forgetting something…a lot of folk still appear to have irrational negative feelings towards The Gays.

    Give it another generation, we’ll get there.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. andrei (2,504 comments) says:

    @CharlieBrown
    Nail on the head, I don’t see why that is not the accepted norm!

    Keep the wording different, but have the same legal effect and rights. So Simple.

    Wrong What you silly liberals have forgotten is that societies that place a premium on reproducing go forth into the future and those that do not will not persist.

    And that the benefits that were accorded to married couples by society in the past – tax breaks and so forth, were granted because of the understanding of the importance of raising the next generation to society at large.

    Marriage as an institution that only exists and only needs to because of reproduction – its not about RIGHTS its about survivial of our culture.

    And as is patently obvious sodomy will not bring forth a new generation to follow on from us – but it is those that understand this only too well who will inherit the earth – and those with the greatest grasp of this, fact of life, in the modern world are Islamic and they do not have an “enlightened” attitude to hedonistic gay lifestyles, nor where their world view holds sway are such things openly tolerated – just the converse in fact.

    But hey what the hell – just because your rights may well insure my children live under tyranny whats it to you? Nothing because you are doomed to extinction and will drag mine down with you.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 43 Thumb down 37 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. peterwn (3,163 comments) says:

    A while back, I came across about three private Acts of Parliament. These were to allow a child adopted by a couple to marry a natural child of that couple. There are no potential genetic problems in such cases, but the texts of the Marriage and Adoption Acts must have been interpreted as forbidding such marriages.

    Genetic problems can and do occur with the offspring of marriage between first cousins, this being a particular problem with royal families where marriage options for those high on the succession list are limited. This would be why some USA states ban such marriages.

    There have been a few possibly grotesque cases in NZ along the lines of (I think) A marries B, B dies and A then marries B’s parent or other close but non-blood relative.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Angus (536 comments) says:

    Andrei, spot on.

    Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: “Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.”

    (“Beyond Gay Marriage,” Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 26 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. NOt1tocommentoften (436 comments) says:

    Wrong What you silly liberals have forgotten is that societies that place a premium on reproducing go forth into the future and those that do not will not persist.

    Andrei – this suggests that in restricting marriage to heterosexual couples we will maintain current birth rates and the continued existence of society. I don’t understand your logic. Allowing marriage only to some is not placing a premium on reproducing. What rubbish.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    Marriage is between a white man and a white woman, and this sanctity will never be defiled by filthy communist politically correct governments.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 27 Thumb down 32 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Anna Sewell (42 comments) says:

    Against gay marriage? Then don’t get one and shut the fuck up.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 46 Thumb down 41 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. andrei (2,504 comments) says:

    . Allowing marriage only to some is not placing a premium on reproducing. What rubbish.

    Oh yeah – then why can’t you marry your sister? Or even civil unionize her then?

    You know the answer – its because of reproduction!

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. .

    I think that means ‘getting people to stop hating us’, or something.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    Ross Nixon. Absolutely right. Yet another example of the ‘gay’ community and their friends hi-jacking the language.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Pete George (22,851 comments) says:

    Whether homosexuals get civil unioned/married or not won’t affect the rates of reproduction. And why would it “radically reordering society’s view of reality” except for those that don’t have a realistic view?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. CharlieBrown (909 comments) says:

    Andrei – “..of the understanding of the importance of raising the next generation to society at large.”

    Consider the following:

    After 2 years of living with someone the state deams a partner you are in a de-facto relationship (regardless if you are aware of or want to be), you are automatically categorised the same as someone married when it comes to property relationship laws. This is an ass law as you can voluntary make this commitment by being married or having a civil union and if you are too stupid or not willing to make this commitment then you don’t have to.

    An unmarried father/mother has exactly the same rights as married parents

    There are no tax advantages to being a married or unmarried parent

    Todays welfare indirectly encourages single parenthood for some people.

    From what I understand, the legal distinction between a marriage and civil union is the name only.

    So can you please explain to me what a legal marriage means in this day and age? You and I are free to decide what we consider a real marriage or not, bit what tangible reason do we have in legally labeling civil unions, marriages and de facto relationships as different?

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Anna Sewell (42 comments) says:

    What I don’t get is the kind of deliberate delusion in which a person chooses to pretend the world is more horrifying and filled with more and more-monstrous monsters. Why would anyone prefer such a place to the real world? Why would anyone wish for a world filled with socialist conspiracies, secret Muslim atheists, Satan-worshiping pop stars and bloodthirsty baby-killers?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. kelsey (35 comments) says:

    Wrong What you silly liberals have forgotten is that societies that place a premium on reproducing go forth into the future and those that do not will not persist.

    Right, so by that logic infertile heterosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to marry either, right? Or couples past the age of reproduction?

    And your implication is that if we make gay marriage impossible somehow gays will decide to have heterosexual marriages and reproduce? That’s idiotic in the extreme.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Wrong. What you silly liberals have forgotten is that societies that place a premium on reproducing go forth into the future and those that do not will not persist.

    How do civil unions affect the birth rate, Andrei? Are you suggesting that the presence of civil unions is discouraging heterosexuals from having children? Now that’s silly.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 24 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    Call it what you like. Civil Union will do. But its not a marriage, no matter how hard it tries to be.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. big bruv (13,311 comments) says:

    Perhaps the Yanks are smarter than us Kiwis, maybe they have worked out that ‘gay’ or ‘same sex’ marriage is nothing more than a back door (no pun intended) way of ushering in gay or same sex adoption.

    As far as I am concerned same sex couples can have their civil unions, marriage is, or should be, between a bloke and a chick, the same goes for adoption.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    Marriage is between a man and his wives, not a man and other men! Truth doesn’t change, people. Words don’t *snort* EVOLVE.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Pete George (22,851 comments) says:

    It’s not as if “marriage” has ever been one clearly defined thing. It varies now around the world and has varied throughout history. It had often been more of a business arrangement (and for aristocrats a political arrangement), commonly arranged by family and love was practiced extramaritaly.

    Marriages were often a means of virtually assigning ownership of the wife to the husband.

    There is a long history of recorded same-sex unions. It is believed that same-sex unions were celebrated in Ancient Greece and Rome, China, and in ancient European history.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. James (1,338 comments) says:

    Since when has sex been about just reproduction? Thats a side consideration but small fry to the main point….enjoyment!

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    The trouble is big bruv a “civil union” just does not cut it with some of the gay community. A civil union may have every right and privilege a married couple enjoys but it’s the word that counts. The gay community, or the radical factions will not rest till it says married on the certificate. It’s the principal that counts and it must be in your face. It’s all part of the liberal come progressive way to break down morals and laws set down by a higher authority.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Pete George (22,851 comments) says:

    It’s all part of the liberal come progressive way to break down morals and laws set down by a higher authority.

    ??

    If homosexual couples call a legal union a marriage it doesn’t affect my morals at all. Why would it break down anyone else’s morals?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Grant Michael McKenna (1,156 comments) says:

    As a cousin of mine- admittedly not a first cousin- is Gail McKenna, I can understand the concept.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. PaulL (5,873 comments) says:

    Ah, the glories of another day on Kiwiblog.

    Getting back to the topic, I think DPF is drawing attention to the disparities here. I see two consistent positions:
    – we don’t care what people do in their private lives, gays can marry, so can first cousins
    – we don’t like people doing icky things, neither gays nor first cousins can marry.

    There look to be about 5 states in the first category, and about 25 in the second category.

    Then we have the other groups:
    – marrying your first cousin is all good, in fact, we think people should do it. But none of the disgusting gay stuff. There are quite a few states in that category
    – gay stuff, all good with us. In fact, we’ll teach people in schools. But shagging your first cousin, now that is just downright gross. None of that gonna be happening in our state – hell, you’d end up with two-headed kids.

    Both of these positions are somewhat amusing, to me at least.

    My recollection was that consistent in-breeding across generations (a la European royalty) was a problem. A single generation is unlikely to cause a problem – sure, if your family happens to carry a rare recessive gene then your odds of freakish children probably go from one in a 100 to one in 50, but you had to have that gene in the first place. For most people it really is unlikely to have a downside unless your whole family decides it’s a way of life and do it for generation after generation (again, a la European royalty).

    As for gay marriage, what to say that hasn’t been said before. My 5c, as always, is that you’ve got your head up your arse if you think that someone else being able to get married somehow devalues your own marriage. But that argument’s been played out here plenty of times before with no likelihood of anyone changing their minds.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. James (1,338 comments) says:

    “It’s the principal that counts and it must be in your face. It’s all part of the liberal come progressive way to break down morals and laws set down by a higher authority.”

    What sort of morality is it that justifys State force against people wanting to consentually bond and be recognised on a level plane with their fellow man?

    This non existent God has a lot of misery and hurt to answer for…

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. big bruv (13,311 comments) says:

    “If homosexual couples call a legal union a marriage it doesn’t affect my morals at all. Why would it break down anyone else’s morals?”

    Because as side show bob says it is all about the gay community being in our face, they are not happy with having the right they really want to flaunt it.

    It is almost as if they actively seek out people who are against it so they can then assume the role of persecuted victim.

    As I have said before, I could not give a toss what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom, what I do object to is being told that I MUST be happy about the idea of gay marriage or civil union, I do not seek to stop what they are doing but I bloody well reserve the right to say that I think it is weird.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 26 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. NOt1tocommentoften (436 comments) says:

    SSB – can you explain to me what the “radical faction of the gay community” is? Made me laugh.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Elijah Lineberry (306 comments) says:

    As a freedom lover I think if a chap wants to marry 16 Women and 79 Men he should be free to do so if everybody consents.

    Similarly if a chap wants to marry his cousin, or all of his cousins …(in a group marriage ceremony would the caterer would give you a discount?).. it is nobody else’s business.

    “Live and let live” is my motto (and I wonder how many other ‘libertarians’ can honestly say the same) ;)

    I am never surprised, alas, at how the State seeks to engage in busybody-ism as to whom you can marry, and adds insult to injury by handing you a list of ‘unapproved’ people you cannot marry and for no particular reason at all other than some people want to mind the business of other people.

    http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. NOt1tocommentoften (436 comments) says:

    Not happy Big Bruv? Why would they be? And this right they speak of is some half arse attempt to fend off the concerns of the conservative factions in NZ. If you were denied something others enjoyed through state discrimination wouldn’t you be unhappy too? Sure you would.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Pete George (22,851 comments) says:

    bruv, you must be happy with the idea of gay marriage or civil union.

    There, see, it wasn’t that bad. I’m sure you’ve been told far worse things on Kiwiblog.

    Yeah, I think homosexuality is weird too, but that’s just how I feel. Others have a right to their feelings, and a right to their own equivalent social commitments, and a right to be able to be open and honest about it all. I’ve never thought the gay community are in my face. I hear a heap more from heteros horrified about something they don’t have to have anything to do with.

    And in today’s mobile society I doubt the cousin thing is a big deal either.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. PaulL (5,873 comments) says:

    big bruv – generalising about a whole community based on the actions of a few is really not useful. Most gay people I know aren’t particularly interested in rubbing anyone’s nose in it, they just want to live and let live. And a few are nut job activists. Just like some religos are nut job activists, some environmentalists are nut jobs, some Maori, some white people, some atheists etc etc etc. Are you really saying that you think all gay people shouldn’t be allowed a marriage/civil union because some small proportion of their number like to rub your face in the fact that they are gay?

    Pete George, I don’t think homosexuality is weird, but it definitely isn’t something that sounds like fun to me. Then again, some people think B&D is fun, and that isn’t my thing either. Doesn’t make it weird, just different.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. big bruv (13,311 comments) says:

    PaulL

    Fair point, I should have said “certain sections of the gay community”.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Pete George (22,851 comments) says:

    Just terminology Paul. It seems weird to me that homosexuals feel the way they do, and yeah, same about those who like B&D, same about those who like rooting around, same about those who purchase sexual services, and a lot of other things, I’m quite traditional and straight, not through any pressure, it’s just how I am.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. starboard (2,475 comments) says:

    a lot of folk still appear to have irrational negative feelings towards The Gays.

    …nothin irrational about it…dress it up and call it what ya want…gay marriage/civil union is bullshit and so long as my arse points downwards, gay marriage/civil union/same sex cohesion will always be ‘subnormal’

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    I’m with Elijah.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Pete George (22,851 comments) says:

    Ah, you mean in agreement Ryan?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    No, we’re getting married.

    Yes, in agreement.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. DRBASS (10 comments) says:

    Surely if homosexuality is genetic and darwin is right, give it a few generations and the issue will evolve away and the heterosexual world can move on until the next gene mutation?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Anna Sewell 2:42 pm,

    Against gay marriage? Then don’t get one and shut the fuck up.

    Another high calibre comment from Anna.
    If you have kids, do you also kiss them with that mouth?
    (Nothing worse than a woman that swears like a trooper)

    Being queer is a sin, and queer ‘marriage’ is an abomination and a contradiction in terms – marriage is between a man and a woman. And maybe YOU should shut your filthy mouth.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. MT_Tinman (2,993 comments) says:

    A rather lightweight Pommy wordsmith once wrote;

    “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
    By any other name would smell as sweet.”

    I don’t care what they call it as long as they don’t expect me to participate.

    I’m with Big Bruv on the adoption thing though.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Rod (236 comments) says:

    “Does NZ allow first cousins to marry?”
    Of course, along with almost all the rest of the world except certain states in the US. They used to too, but the weird eugenics movement that inspired Hitler had a powerful influence there a century or so ago. Not just Darwin, but also Einstein, Grieg and lots more examples abound. In fact, in parts of the Middle East it is probably more common than not – ok, I know, that might explain something!

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. dad4justice (7,790 comments) says:

    I think homosexuals are not well in the head.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 26 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Elijah Lineberry (306 comments) says:

    Dad4Justice – at least homosexuals are ‘men’ who have some ‘balls’ unlike you.

    This is in contrast to those effete, wimpy chaps who have to slink around like a eunich crying bitter tears and complaining about the Family Court because they allowed vexatious women to push them around ;)

    http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    James 4:00 pm,

    What sort of morality is it that justifys State force against people wanting to consentually bond and be recognised on a level plane with their fellow man?

    Why stop there, James?
    How about allowing ‘marriage’ between adults and minors, or men and young boys (heard of NAMBLA?), or heck, between a person and their pet dog? With no standards, and the laws that back them up, then anything goes.
    Your idea of ‘freedom’ without standards ends up with anarchy and abominable perversions dressed up as ‘marriage’ and other evil.

    This non existent God has a lot of misery and hurt to answer for…

    Maybe you should do a little research into atheistic countries and how they treat their populaces – some REAL “misery and hurt” for your entertainment pleasure.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. dad4justice (7,790 comments) says:

    Elijah – I help homosexuals recover to become normal again.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Brian (Shadowfoot) (78 comments) says:

    Do some marriages end up as uncivil unions?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    I loved this viewpoint on so called Gay marriage by Dr Kelly Hollowell in 2004
    Sensible then, sensible now.

    It’s dilution, stupid!

    The question is “If gays can get married, how does that destroy my marriage or yours? How does giving rights to one group take away rights from another group?”
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=24528

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Graeme Edgeler (3,267 comments) says:

    Same thing could be said about the situation in New Zealand, DPF.

    Marriage between first cousins is permitted, but between two men or two women it is not.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    dad4justice 5:06 pm,

    I think homosexuals are not well in the head.

    Indeed.
    And it wasn’t long ago when society viewed homosexuality as a mental illness, as well as a sin of the worst kind – an abomination.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 27 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    D4D & KrisK
    so did the American Psychological Association until the Homosexual activists got on board and bullied and brow beat them!

    See http://www.narth.org for the details
    Dr Jeffery Satinover has the gen.
    http://www.narth.com/menus/born.html
    http://www.narth.com/menus/cstudies.html
    http://www.narth.com/menus/gasocsciences.html

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. kelsey (35 comments) says:

    How about allowing ‘marriage’ between adults and minors, or men and young boys (heard of NAMBLA?), or heck, between a person and their pet dog? With no standards, and the laws that back them up, then anything goes.

    Minors and dogs are not able to consent, which is a fundamental principle of a marriage.

    Maybe you should do a little research into atheistic countries and how they treat their populaces – some REAL “misery and hurt” for your entertainment pleasure.

    Huh? New Zealand and Scandanavian countries are amongst the most atheistic, and have low levels of misery and hurt.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. dad4justice (7,790 comments) says:

    MikeNZ – I have witnessed homosexual activists hijack a male suicide prevention conference. Stuff Barnett I walked out with the DISGUSTED learned chaps from uni and a victim support lady. Pay back poofters. How many NORMAL DADS die this year Elijah turd?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. PaulL (5,873 comments) says:

    Grant – I had to search Gail McKenna. Google brings up some interesting photos on that first search page. Seems I turned off safe search at some point……

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    MikeNZ 5:21 pm,

    D4D & KrisK
    so did the American Psychological Association until the Homosexual activists got on board and bullied and brow beat them!

    No surprises there.
    In my Book (we must use the same reference material ;) ) homosexuality is described not just as sin, but abomination. And no matter what law changes and redefining of terminology takes place – it will always be so defined in my (& God’s) eyes.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    kelsey 5:24 pm,

    Minors and dogs are not able to consent, which is a fundamental principle of a marriage.

    If we changed the ‘law’ so that we said they could ‘consent’ then the door is wide open for ‘marriage’ to occur between such parties. I cite homosexuality as my example of what was illegal but has now come into ‘law’.

    Huh? New Zealand and Scandanavian countries are amongst the most atheistic, and have low levels of misery and hurt.

    And they were founded upon Christianity. As we more fully embrace atheism then the “misery and hurt” increase accordingly.
    You do read the papers and watch the news occassionally I take it?

    None so blind as those who WILL NOT see, eh Kelsey?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Rex Widerstrom (5,266 comments) says:

    andrei opines:

    And as is patently obvious sodomy will not bring forth a new generation to follow on from us…

    I can still recall the uproar that ensued when Sam Hunt pointed out, during an “Edwards on Saturday” episode, that it’s not an activity practised solely by male homosexuals and indeed he’d enjoy a session of it with his wife the previous evening.

    Clearly it was part of their sexual repertoire, they both enjoyed it and – perhaps – it therefore helped sustain their marriage. So on that basis it could perhaps be said to be a precursor or adjunct to reproductive sex, and a means by which married and unmarried heterosexual couples opt to interact sexually.

    So I’m genuinely curious about the Biblical view on that (which I’ve never taken the time to research, having somewhat more pressing priorities). Is sodomy okay with your opposite sex civil union partner, or do you have to get married for it to be okay? Or just forbidden with your same sex civil union partner? Or aren’t you meant to be doing it with anyone, even if you’ve, in Beyonce’s terms (and excuse the pun) put a ring on it?

    Personally I suspect the original prohibition and the ongoing disapproval was and is more about a moral distaste for the nature of the act rather than any concerns about reproduction. After all, as others have pointed out, it’s not as though making sure every homosexual sodomite was immediately struck by lightening is going to turn them straight and see them start having families.

    And anyone who paints all Muslims as intolerant towards adultery, homosexuality etc needs to get out more. Disapproval, yes. Prejudice, excommunication, intolerance – no.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    And it wasn’t long ago when society viewed homosexuality as a mental illness, as well as a sin of the worst kind – an abomination.

    Crazy that in a world of torture, child abuse, child soldiers, preventable starvation, rape, genital mutilation, human sacrifice and murder, two men loving one another could be considered a “sin of the worst kind”.

    Sounds like the meter hits maximum a little early.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull 5:47 pm,

    Crazy that in a world of torture, child abuse, child soldiers, preventable starvation, rape, genital mutilation, human sacrifice and murder, two men loving one another could be considered a “sin of the worst kind”.

    Sounds like the meter hits maximum a little early.

    Yeah, good on ya, Ryan.
    Up to your usual standard.

    God destroyed those nations that practiced such things as well.

    Sodom, Gomorrah, and the other regions/nations that practiced such ‘abominations’ as sodomy, child/human sacrifice, rape, starvation of others, child abuse, etc. were ALL wiped out by God.

    When God’s “meter hits maximum”, then watch out – His grace only extends so far, and then the games up.
    Ditto on the personal level, Ryan.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 23 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    MikeNZ 5:17 pm

    I loved this viewpoint on so called Gay marriage by Dr Kelly Hollowell in 2004
    Sensible then, sensible now.

    It’s dilution, stupid!

    The question is “If gays can get married, how does that destroy my marriage or yours? How does giving rights to one group take away rights from another group?”
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=24528

    Excellent link, Mike.
    It is hard to deny the common sense logic she outlines – I encourage others to read this and try to refute it.

    From the link:

    4. Predatory Intent: Gay marriage is only one part of a long-term strategy by the gay and lesbian activist community to undermine the concept of marriage and the system of family that is based upon marriage. It is not about gay rights. It’s about the destruction of the fundamental idea of marriage as a social institution. It’s about dissolution of the traditional family unit, honoring thy father and mother, becoming of one flesh through procreation. It’s about destroying natural barriers to incest through ignorance of ones sibling relationships, rejecting sexual distinction and the order that flows and is premised upon those distinctions according to natural law. …

    [Conclusion]
    Based on this analysis, gay marriage will undoubtedly dilute the distinctive quality of traditional marriage. It provides a one-word answer to the question, “What harm can gay marriage inflict on traditional marriage in America?” Worse, diluting this fundamental institution will inevitably lead to the dissolution of our existing civil society by destroying its inherent social structure.

    All valid points.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. tristanb (1,133 comments) says:

    Firstly, God doesn’t exist – only idiots truly believe he does. Secondly, there is nothing godly about marriage, it is nothing but a piece of paper, I don’t see what hateful people have against sex-same marriage.

    Thirdly, dad4justice, you are an evil man, I hope your kids get taken from you. I strongly suggest you consider suicide to end your hateful pain.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Anna Sewell (42 comments) says:

    In reality, it is hard to make a watertight Biblical argument against homosexuality. To my knowledge, there are three main Biblical passages that appear to be against homosexuality. The first is in Old Testament law (e.g. Leviticus 18:22), but is alongside a lot of other bizarre commandments, which no Christian I know observes (e.g. don’t wear cloths with two fibres), so there is no reason to see the law’s condemnation of homosexuality as anything more than an obscure old law.

    The next is the example Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19), cities that were destroyed by God for their unrighteousness. The question is, what were they doing that caused them to be considered unrighteousness? The Bible gives us an example; Angels visit the town, and the men of the town want to homosexually rape them. Some take this (as does Christian tradition) to be an indication that homosexuality is wrong, but this misses the far more obvious sin; rape. Any town that’s default response to visitors is attempted rape is unrighteous, heterosexual or homosexual. So this account doesn’t provide evidence that homosexuality is wrong.

    Lastly, there are a few New Testament passage that mention homosexuality amongst a list of other negative attributes. The most notable one is Romans 1, where Paul talks about people turning away from God, and engaging in homosexuality, among other things. This may appear as a scathing condemnation of homosexuality, but we should look closely at what Paul is actually saying. For a start, Romans is a horribly difficult book to understand, so we should be careful in coming to firm conclusions from a single passage. Among various interpretations, it is possible that Paul is quoting another passage, and doesn’t actually agree with what the passage is saying, which would explain why Paul suddenly flips the blame onto the readers in Romans 2: “Therefore, you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment”. Additionally, it is entirely feasible that Paul (or the passage Paul is quoting) is not commenting homosexuality per se, but pagan cults that involves sexual rituals.

    So there is some apparent Biblical condemnation of homosexuality. But it’s in isolated passages, which can be explained as culturally irrelevant today. What we should look to is the broader picture of the Bible, and ignore the pieces that seem to be artifacts of the culture of Biblical authors (e.g. slavery, a decidedly non-Christian practice, is all but endorsed in Colossians 3). What is the broader picture, and what does it have to say about homosexuality?

    Jesus did not come to the ‘in’ crowd. He came to the outcasts of society. He helped the lepers, he associated with ’sinners’, with tax collectors, with prostitutes, with the common people, all the people who the religious leaders looked down upon. He came bringing reversal to exploitation, he hated the idea that religion was being used to make money of people, that people were being oppressed by the economic and religious systems, and he fought against it. It took a while, but eventually his disciples caught on to the idea that the kingdom of God was not just for Jews, it was for Gentiles too. It wasn’t just for free men, but for slaves, for women, for everyone. Before God, all men and women are equal. All men and women. The end of James 1, James makes it pretty clear that if we resort to following the old ways of respecting one group over another group, we are really going against the message of Jesus.

    I put it to you that homosexuals are the outcasts of modern society. Admittedly their lot in society has been getting better, but unfortunately this has been because of efforts outside of the Church, and in fact their lot has been impeded by the Church. It should be the other way round – the Church should be advocating for homosexual rights.

    It’s hard to be different. Our society is heavily heterosexual, to be homosexual is a deviation from the norm. Someone who comes to terms with being a homosexual can go through a very difficult journey. They have to come to terms with being different from what seems like everyone else, they have to deal with an inner conflict as they try and work out who they are, and what they believe is right and wrong, they have to come to put up with all the derogatory comments towards homosexuals, the reactions of others when they come out, which can range from surprise to moral condemnation to disgust. Some people can be accepting, but others are not – and the most screwed up thing is that Christians are often the most unaccepting people.

    Christians condemnation of homosexuality is an evil, as it goes against what Jesus taught, and also, it causes much pain. Consider the familiar example of someone growing up inside Christianity, but coming to the realisation that they have homosexual feelings. There is an inevitable dilemma; either reject the Church dogma that homosexuality is wrong, or reject a part of themselves. Both of these choices can be incredibly painful, one often leading to a disconnection from Church, family, sometimes all they know, the other often leading to a rejection of self, a horrible, horrible fate. I have seen people destroyed by this dilemma. People shouldn’t have to make this choice.

    Premise 1: ‘It is not good for man to be alone’. It is an inalienable right that someone should be able to live with their mutually chosen partner. An individual’s right to form a close intimate bond with another individual should not be taken away, without very very good reasons.

    Premise 2: There exists homosexual individuals who would not be satisfied by a heterosexual relationship. I’m not saying that homosexuality has a solely genetic etiology, I’m just saying that some people are at a point where they just couldn’t do a heterosexual relationship.

    If one deems homosexuality to be wrong, this means that there will be individuals who have had their right to form an intimate relationship taken away from them.

    What would you do if someone told you that even though you loved someone, you were not allowed to be with them? If you have a partner, think about them. What would it be like to look upon your very relationship as something pathological, something wrong, something to be repressed, ignored? Think what it would be like to spend the rest of your life away from them, knowing that although you both love each other, you must live apart?

    I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.

    In the past I believed homosexuality was a sin. Naively I contributed to the Christian culture that preached that homosexuality was wrong, that people who ‘had it’ could repent and change. I now recognize that I contributed to oppression; I contributed to the culture that causes a lot of pain for many people, a lot of which I probably wasn’t aware of it. No more.

    - Nathan van Rij.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. dad4justice (7,790 comments) says:

    “dad4justice, you are an evil man, I hope your kids get taken from you. I strongly suggest you consider suicide to end your hateful pain.”

    What a lost the plot comment. I am just a normal guy with four kiwi kids who love me. Thanks to GOD.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    tristanb 6:30 pm,

    What an evil, small minded biggot you are, Tristan.
    To wish someone would lose their children, and then follow that up with suicide truly reveals that it is you who is EVIL.

    And actually God (of the Bible) instituted marriage in the first place.

    Your arrogance regarding His non existence shows that it is you who is the idiot.
    And God agrees with me in this:

    Psa 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

    Good luck for when you stand before Him – try explaining His non existence then.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Anna Sewell 6:34 pm,

    Go spread your lies elsewhere – and try some original thought for a change – anyone can cut and paste what others have said.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Anna Sewell (42 comments) says:

    Kris K – you mean like what you did in your comment at 6:17 pm?

    Pharisees like you are the reason people walk away from God.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Go spread your lies elsewhere – and try some original thought for a change – anyone can cut and paste what others have said.

    In fairness Kris, you frequently cut-n-paste scripture. I know you look upon the Bible as a reference book of absolute truths, however many of us here do not, so it’s a bit high-handed to assume your cut-n-pasting is superior.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Fletch (6,026 comments) says:

    Anna, to answer some of your cut’n’paste job…

    Where do you think the word ‘sodomy’ comes from? It is taken from Sodom and Gomorrah – that’s where it gets it’s name from . You can try to deny the Bible condemns homosexual relations until you’re blue in the face, but I’m sorry it does, and homosexuals will agree with me. Gay actor Ian McKellen even rips those pages out of Bibles when he visits hotels (Google it and you’ll see – he even mentioned in on Close Up, or Holmes as it was then). AT least he’s honest about what the Bible does say.

    If one deems homosexuality to be wrong, this means that there will be individuals who have had their right to form an intimate relationship taken away from them.

    Well, you could say the same about pedophiles who want a relationship with a young boy couldn’t you? Why should his right to have an intimate relationship be taken away if that is his ‘orientation’ and the boy is willing?

    Andrei is right about marriage and procreation – argue about it all you like but gay people can’t have sex (sexual intercourse) with each other. They can fiddle with each others’ organs, but that’s not sex.

    On December 6th 2004, the United Nations General Assembly commemorated the 10th anniversary of the International Year of the Family, by adopting the Doha Declaration’s resolution on strengthening the family. The Doha Declaration stated, among other things, that:

    * All governments, international organisations and members of civil society at all levels should take action to protect the family.
    * The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the widest possible protection and assistance by society and the State.
    * That governments uphold, preserve and defend the institution of marriage;

    Real Women of Canada’s Jan/Feb 2005 Reality newsletter pointed out that, despite the unanimous support of 149 countries present to ratify the Doha Declaration December 6, there were 14 (absent) dissenters, including Canada and the European Union. I believe NZ (shamefully) was one of those countries.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. kelsey (35 comments) says:

    And they were founded upon Christianity. As we more fully embrace atheism then the “misery and hurt” increase accordingly.

    Any evidence of this? Any at all? Even if it were true (it’s not) it still says nothing about the truth value of the sky fairy and his zombie son.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. kiki (425 comments) says:

    The religions from the middle east were the original cut and pastes.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. big bruv (13,311 comments) says:

    D4J

    “Elijah – I help homosexuals recover to become normal again.”

    Of all the dumb things you have said (and there are numerous examples) that would have to top the list.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. CharlieBrown (909 comments) says:

    I see the bigotted, narrowminded, judgemental christians have started doing their usual attacking rants now. We’re all free to develop our own relationship with God, and if you believe others behaviour is wrong in Gods eyes then so be it. But you people that are against freedom of choice, regardless of the personal nature of that choice and the effect it has on you, all in the name of the bible should go to Saudi Arabia. They have a religious theocracy there, apart from the multiple wives thing, your values would go down pretty well there. Alternatively you could put that energy into inventing a time machine and going back to the dark ages of church rule you so long for.

    I wish these people would stop preaching their hate and bigotry in the name of Christians. You are nothing more than stupid bigots.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. dad4justice (7,790 comments) says:

    Hey big blouse get fucking treatment for your demented fixation with me you cowardly slimeball. Be a real man and front me face to face you strange creep. What a bored life you must lead. Get a grip.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Malcolm 7:15 pm,

    In fairness Kris, you frequently cut-n-paste scripture. I know you look upon the Bible as a reference book of absolute truths, however many of us here do not, so it’s a bit high-handed to assume your cut-n-pasting is superior.

    And in fairness, Malcolm, I usually expound what the scriptures say as well – so that you and others might better understand the truths of God contained therein.

    On the short time Anna Sewell has been with us I have seen her on numerous occassions ‘cut and paste’ without even a comment on her part at all. While debate may involve sourcing information to support your views, Anna just cuts and pastes and adds no original thought. She may as well just put up a link and leave it at that.
    Her 6:34 pm c&p is atypical of her contributions so far.

    I know you like to play devil’s advocate on occassion, Malcolm, but as you say; fair’s fair.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Dave001 (92 comments) says:

    D4J – what a tosser

    No wonder your wife left you and wont let you see your kids, I wouldn’t let you see your kids.
    Given your demented rants I’d say you’re probably a closet homosexual the sooner you realise it the better. Its probably the reason your wife did leave you and take the kids. she probably realised you weren’t going to be happy until you met the man of you dreams.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. smfj (2 comments) says:

    d4j, I found your claim of helping making gay people normal pretty ridiculous. I’ve never felt better and more normal than since I came out as homosexual.

    Queer issues need to be talked about at suicide prevention conferences. A fifth of youth identifying as homo- or bi-sexual have tried to commit suicide (a third of them have considered it) and about half have harmed themselves (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/2987987/Suicide-risk-for-gay-bisexual-youth). If it wasn’t being talked about at this convention then good on those people who hijacked it, it’s a serious issue.

    Also, can we not take words that have been translated a billion different times into a different language with different ideas. Unless you are fluent in Hebrew and Ancient Greek and know all about their culture and social climate you can’t fully explain these ideas. I’ve actually already written about this, http://www.salient.org.nz/features/this-is-for-my-fundies

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Anna Sewell 6:52 pm,

    Kris K – you mean like what you did in your comment at 6:17 pm?
    Pharisees like you are the reason people walk away from God.

    I’m sure you don’t need me as an excuse, Anna.

    If you added original thought to your c&p jobs you would at least have some credibility around here – the fact that you don’t means you’re just filling a vacuum – boring!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Dave001 8:25 pm,

    D4J … Given your demented rants I’d say you’re probably a closet homosexual the sooner you realise it the better. Its probably the reason your wife did leave you and take the kids. she probably realised you weren’t going to be happy until you met the man of you dreams.

    Another ‘newbee’ making unsubstantiated assertions and attacking someones character.
    Why don’t you cretins go away and come back when you’re able to grow some facial hair?
    Immature boys playing at being ‘men’.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. dad4justice (7,790 comments) says:

    Dave 101 – I have my children you festering nutjob. WOW big blouse has some odd mates. Time to go and enjoy the company of some REAL folks. Keyboard cowards are so tough. NOT !

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. andrei (2,504 comments) says:

    Oh dear – sanity has prevailed in New Jersey, they have just voted down GAY MARRIAGE
    which means they aren’t as brain addled as I thought in the Garden State.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Dave001 (92 comments) says:

    D4J – You’re allowed access to children? No wonder society is going down hill fast. BTW what exactly is a “festering nutjob”?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Anna Sewell (42 comments) says:

    Kris K – here are a few more cut and pastes directed at you:

    Matthew 7:1-5 Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

    Matthew 23:27, 28 Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

    Romans 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. smfj (2 comments) says:

    d4j, I’m confused at you calling us keyboard cowards, we’re using our keyboards the same way as you, for argument.

    Bible aside, we live in a multi-cultural society full of people with different beliefs or lack thereof. You can’t have laws only suit a certain type of people if they’re going to infringe on human rights. People should be allowed to get married to whoever they want if that person is consenting. Non-human animals are nonconsenting, we cannot communicate with them. Young people can’t fully consent because they don’t fully understand.

    Adoption-wise, there has been no substantial evidence that a kid raised by 2 people of the same gender is worse off. In fact, I think I heard of one study that said 2 women could raise a kid better.
    But studies are bias. If I have kids I’ll just see how it goes and not listen to any studies

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Jack5 (4,591 comments) says:

    If genetic necessity dictates rules against brothers and sisters marrying and perhaps against first cousins marrying, perhaps this confirms there should be a separate type of civil union/marriage for homosexuals, since it won’t matter whether they marry their siblings or cousins, as no offspring are possible.

    Genetic requirements seem to suggest that the present arrangement isn’t a bad solution: civil union for homosexuals and marriage for heterosexuals.

    Incidentally, how do gay couples apply honorific titles? Mr and Mr probably, but is it Ms and Ms or Miss and Miss, or Mrs and Mrs?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Dave001 (92 comments) says:

    Kris K – Me thinks if Jesus were to appear before you you’d reject him, some how I think he’d be far too liberal for the likes of you.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Anna Sewell 8:47 pm,

    Kris K – here are a few more cut and pastes directed at you:

    As usual, the ‘unsaved’ quoting scripture miss entirely what is actually being said, and to whom it is being said.

    Here’s one for you, Anna:

    1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
    1Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
    1Co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

    Gee, he that is “spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man”, or woman, for that matter.
    I think I’ll let God judge me and my motives, Anna, but you have bigger concerns – a little thing called ‘salvation’ to consider.
    And I do advise you to do just that – your eternal soul is at stake.

    I’m off for the evening – too many fruitloops spoiling the Christmas cake for my liking.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Dirty Rat (504 comments) says:

    And I bet the average pillowbiter has had more sexual partners in one week than Cactus Kate has in an entire lifetime.

    Ten tonnes of joint testosterone and a Turkey Baster will go for miles

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. winston smith (45 comments) says:

    Kris K – Seriously?

    Are you going for a gold medal or something?
    ( stuffchristianslike.net/2008/06/309-the-judgment-olympics/ )

    “I think I’ll let God judge me and my motives” – how about applying that rule to other folk? Even if ye have proclaimed they be ‘unsaved’. What are you trying to achieve?

    I’m personally not too worried about my marriage imploding under the weight of gay & lesbian kissing at altars. Not convinced gay marriage is neccessary… OR a horrible exploding threat of doom to society. Don’t we have, like, P addiction and child abuse and stuff?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. andrei (2,504 comments) says:

    Anna Sewell – nobody is passing judgement on Gays. Saying that two men cannot marry one another nor two women marry each other is not passing judgement.

    It is preserving the sacred union of marriage and maintaining the purpose for which it was instituted – that is procreation.

    If I may add my own cut and paste
    Genesis 1:27-28

    27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

    meat.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Fletch (6,026 comments) says:

    Anna, yes God does say not to judge, but I think you’re taking the meaning of it wrongly.

    We all have to judge things every day – whether something is right or wrong. We are confronted by situations daily where we must judge what is right. I think the passages you quote refer more to ‘condemning’ than judging. If I look at relationships that include homosexual relations then yes, I do judge them to be wrong when I hold it up the commandments God gives us through his Word. Equally, you judge me to be wrong in the same way (or is it only OK for Christians not to judge, but OK for you? Are you quoting those passages because you believe them, or are you just trying to be clever?).

    In the end it is not for me to condemn. It is God’s job to administer Justice.

    The Catholic catechism says regarding homosexuals –

    They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

    This does not mean that I have to agree with some of their actions, though; and I never will.

    I DO see a lot of judgement and condemnation by posters like CharlieBrown. Am I not allowed to disagree with some of the things that people do? The same way you disagree with me. I don’t care what people do in private in their own homes but I’ll be damned if I’m going to sit idly by and see laws changed which will damage society as a whole because of an ‘anything goes’ mentality.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. reid (15,954 comments) says:

    Most people don’t know that Satan the Devil translates to the Slanderer and Deceiver.

    He’s very good at this job and many ears are tickled by such tricks as “it’s all about human rights.”

    He picks lots of emotive grey areas and this topic is one of his par-excellence battlegrounds.

    Over to you, but if I were you, I’d bear in mind this is one area where you need if you are attendant toward G-d, to be extremely dedicated toward discerning the true message.

    BTW: Hint: it’s not about you; it’s about what happens to society if your particular conclusion and opinion takes hold and flourishes.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Haiku Dave (273 comments) says:

    it’s socialist to
    whack off onto your same-sex
    cousin’s firm buttocks

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Anna Sewell (42 comments) says:

    I think I’ll let God judge me and my motives, Anna, but you have bigger concerns – a little thing called ’salvation’ to consider. And I do advise you to do just that – your eternal soul is at stake.

    No thanks, I think you’ve put me off Christianity.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. starboard (2,475 comments) says:

    Haiku Dave (161) Says:

    January 8th, 2010 at 11:53 pm
    it’s socialist to
    whack off onto your same-sex
    cousin’s firm buttocks

    hahaha !!! Love it !!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Seán (396 comments) says:

    Why is it that social liberals use marriage to one’s cousin as some sort of justification for same sex marriage? I mean, at least the cousin is of the opposite sex. Indeed it is very weird, but do they think that up the poop shoot is more normal?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Brian Smaller (3,992 comments) says:

    There would be no small scale tribal societies, no indigenous population of Pacific Islands and NZ and so forth if people did not marry first cousins at some stage. There just wasn’t the population to support unrelated bloodlines. Same in all societies before people started moving around. It was all kept in the family.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Dave001 8:59 pm,

    Kris K – Me thinks if Jesus were to appear before you you’d reject him, some how I think he’d be far too liberal for the likes of you.

    No doubt, Dave, you and the liberal wing of many Protestant churches would have much in common:

    “Most mainline Protestant churches are, to one degree or another, post-Christian. If they no longer seem disposed to converting the unbelieving to Christ, they can at least convert them to the boggiest of soft-left political clichés, on the grounds that if Jesus were alive today he’d most likely be a gay Anglican bishop in a committed relationship driving around in an environmentally friendly car with an “Arms Are for Hugging” sticker on the way to an interfaith dialogue with a Wiccan and a couple of Wahhabi imams.”
    Mark Steyn, 2005

    Jesus had much compassion for the lost, but little tolerance for sin:

    Joh 5:14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

    Joh 8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
    Joh 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

    How judgemental of Christ to tell them to “sin no more”.

    My advice to homosexuals, and indeed all sinners, is to repent of your sins, and “sin no more”. True repentance involves turning to, and receiving Christ as your Lord and Saviour. Without receiving Him there can be no forgiveness of sin.
    And without Christ unrepentant sinners will end up in the Lake of Fire for all eternity – where the Devil and his angels will be also.
    This deserves your urgent attention, folks – time is short.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. grumpyoldhori (2,410 comments) says:

    Fletch, before you quote any bloody catholic rantings, might I suggest you read the Ryan report out of Ireland, it may give you a bit more insight into the workings of a religion that believed it was more important to protect so called priests rather than children.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Fletch (6,026 comments) says:

    grumpyoldhori, there is nothing wrong with the religion in those cases, it is the men who are not practicing what that religion teaches and bringing scandal unto it.

    It’s like if you were a fan of rugby league and the Bulldogs were your team. Lets say a couple of Bulldogs’ players take a couple of women up to their rooms after a game and the women later charge the players with rape. Is it the fault of those players, or is it the fault of the Bulldogs team as an entity? Those two players have caused scandal for the team, but nowhere in the Bulldogs’ team rulebook does it say that rape is OK. I’m sure if you were a Bulldogs fan you are not likely to change teams because of the actions of a couple of their players. Likewise, I am not likely to change my church because of the actions of some priests who go against Church teaching and commit horrid sins.

    What about all the good priests out there, who help people everyday? As I quoted the other day “According to a survey by the Washington Post, over the last four decades, less than 1.5 percent of the estimated 60,000 or more men who have served in the Catholic clergy have been accused of child sexual abuse.[iv] According to a survey by the New York Times, 1.8 percent of all priests ordained from 1950 to 2001 have been accused of child sexual abuse.”

    What about the 98% of priests who are good?

    I remember reading a story about a man who helped some friends of his in court winning a case against some very bad lawyers. I think the case took about 3 years. He commented that just because these lawyers were bad and had done bad things didn’t mean that the law profession as a whole was bad. Nor does it mean the medical profession is bad because of some wicked doctors. Don’t let the actions of a bad few make you think that religion as a whole is bad.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Dirty Rat (504 comments) says:

    Heres a thought

    Why do lesbians use dildo’s ?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    there is nothing wrong with the religion in those cases, it is the men who are not practicing what that religion teaches and bringing scandal unto it.

    Perhaps, but when you teach: faith is a virtue; don’t question; and if you do then we’re mere mortals who can’t understand; the church represents god; respect the priest; people go to hell for not following the word of the church/priest etc. Then it’s a fantastic environment for people who want to sexually abuse children. There’s a ready-made mechanism to keep the victims quiet.

    Not to mention the aiding and abetting by authorities in the Catholic Church. They have time and time again put the church before the law and before the victims and future victims.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. grumpyoldhori (2,410 comments) says:

    Fletch, ordinary priests who did no harm, I have no problem with those blokes.
    But, when the Vatican tries to make out it knew nothing about the cover ups in Ireland I have a hell of a lot of trouble believing that.

    So a question, should the Catholic church run a inquiry among the senior ranks into who knew and did nothing ?
    Or would that be too dangerous because it might reach to the very top of the Catholic church ?

    Do you believe as the Catholic Church in Ireland still believes that only the Catholic church has the right morals to run primary schools in Ireland ?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. somewhatthoughtful (452 comments) says:

    Kris K, if we’re going to talk about fictional books and questionable morals I just have one question: Was Jesus an elf or a man?

    Oh, and him shouldn’t be capitalised.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. CharlieBrown (909 comments) says:

    Fletch ” I DO see a lot of judgement and condemnation by posters like CharlieBrown. Am I not allowed to disagree with some of the things that people do?”

    Certainly, you are allowed to disagree, and I never said you can’t:

    “We’re all free to develop our own relationship with God, and if you believe others behaviour is wrong in Gods eyes then so be it. But you people that are against freedom of choice, regardless of the personal nature of that choice and the effect it has on you, all in the name of the bible should go to Saudi Arabia.”

    I do condemn it when people wish to force their beliefs into the private lives of other people who do not wish to live as them. Christians should have faith that God will lay down his judgement when the time comes, and if Homosexuality is a sin (after knowing several people I have come to believe it isn’t, but thats my own belief and I don’t care if you disagree) then those people will be judged. But as this lifestyle has no tangible effect on you, myself or society in general then we shouldn’t be telling these people that they cannot make a legal commitment to their partners.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.