Same Sex Marriage

July 16th, 2011 at 10:40 am by David Farrar

NRT blogs:

this month ResearchNZ asked about it in their regular monthly poll of social attitudes. The question was

“In your view, should same sex couples also be allowed to marry?”According to the results [offline, but will be up here later], 60% of respondents were in favour and 34% opposed

If that is correctly reported, then that is a great result.

Support was higher amongst women (66%) than men (51%), and significantly higher amongst young people, with 79% of those in the 18 – 34 age bracket in support (vs “only” 61% of 35 – 54 years olds, and 44% among older people).

With 80% support amongst under 35s, I’d say it is inevitable and just a matter of time.

Some people thought the world would end with civil unions. It didn’t. All that happened is same sex couples who wanted to pledge their love for each other were able to do so in a way which has legal recognition.

Civil unions are marriage in substance, but not in name. I don’t think it is a burning issue, but I do think that Parliament should listen to the people, and amend the Marriage Act to allow same sex marriages.

Tags:

279 Responses to “Same Sex Marriage”

  1. dave (985 comments) says:

    but I do think that Parliament should listen to the people, and…
    repeal the anti smacking legislation
    scrap the referendum on the electoral system
    repeal the coastal and Marine Area Act
    Let prisoners vote

    etc…etc..etc

    [DPF: The first two were election promises and hence a mandate not to repeal and to have a referendum. I am not aware of any poll showing support for having prisoners vote. ]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Andrei (2,430 comments) says:

    Civil unions are marriage in substance

    No they are not, they are not anything of substance at all. They are just another marxist attempt to rewrite humanity in its own image.

    No matter how much you play with words and their meaning the real world will have the last laugh and in this case what this means is that to conceive a child it will always require exactly one man and one woman.

    There is no getting around it I’m afraid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    Andrei – I would appreciate if you could provide specific references to the writings of Marx where he advocated Civil Unions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Courage Wolf (559 comments) says:

    No matter how much you play with words and their meaning the real world will have the last laugh and in this case what this means is that to conceive a child it will always require exactly one man and one woman.

    As far as I’m aware Andrei the purpose of marriage isn’t to conceive a child. Fuck, you can even conceive a child without getting married, so marriage is effectively irrelevant in terms of having a child. So what’s your point?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    “Civil unions are marriage in substance, but not in name.”
    So you are suggesting changing the meaning of marriage.
    From…
    “The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.”
    To…..
    “Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship.” (Wikipedia)

    “By 2050—earlier, probably—all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron—they’ll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually contradictory of what they used to be. (1984-George Orwell)”

    Consider the words racism, indigenous, apartheid and the concept “Freedom of Speech”.
    All of those words are politicised and have had their meaning changed.

    Can anybody tell me what a gay person is these days?
    Happy, homosexual or lame (In the non-pc meaning)?
    Sigh…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Courage Wolf (559 comments) says:

    Whilst on the blatantly veiled premise of what you’re discussing Andrei, have a look at these pictures:

    http://i.imgur.com/nqvY9.png

    http://i.imgur.com/FzNuE.png

    http://i.imgur.com/8LsJi.jpg

    http://i.imgur.com/M3yxB.png

    http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/2193/1251169393326.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    @Courage Wolf
    Sorry.
    You are saying?
    Lost you there…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Tauhei Notts (1,509 comments) says:

    I love my dog but that doesn’t mean I should be allowed to marry the bitch.
    Marriage is a sacred commitment.
    Civil unions are fine for the homosexual community.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Andrei (2,430 comments) says:

    Rodders;

    Marx went after marriage – his concept would be that the State would raise the children thus ensuring that that were socialised into the ways of the State and thus bring forth Nirvana.

    The Bolsheviks tried and failed to implement this, people stubbornly clung to the old ways and this indeed was the issue that rose between Trotski and Stalin, when Stalin finally gave up on it.

    It was taken up by Gramsci and Gramsci gave us feminism who of course as we know launched an all out and fairly successful assault on Marriage.

    Gay marriage is just the next phase in this assault – don’t you ever wonder why some of those in the front lines of the battle for same sex marriage are feminists who are actually hostile to the institution?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Courage Wolf (559 comments) says:

    Tauhei Notts (913) Says:

    I love my dog but that doesn’t mean I should be allowed to marry the bitch.
    Marriage is a sacred commitment.
    Civil unions are fine for the homosexual community.

    That’s the same argument that was advocated by the anti-inter-racial marriage group. Niggers can go to their own Church, niggers can marry their own niggers, doesn’t mean white Churches should be allowed to accept them into their congregations and administer their marriages. Nigger Church marriage is good enough for the niggers. And you’re wrong – there is nothing ‘sacred’ about marriage – it’s the signing of a legal document. Any other ‘sacred’ or religious meaning given to it is as superstitious as believing in Taniwha.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. hj (5,692 comments) says:

    I’ve met married gay couples and while it is strange I look at them and see the obvious and that is that that is what they want. They aren’t doing it just to be different.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Courage Wolf (559 comments) says:

    Gay marriage is just the next phase in this assault – don’t you ever wonder why some of those in the front lines of the battle for same sex marriage are feminists who are hostile to the institution?

    Don’t you ever wonder why those who consider gay marriage an ‘assault’ are Christians who believe in retarded fairy tales and imaginary higher beings?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. fatboy slim (77 comments) says:

    Yet another socialist engineering nail in an already morally bankrupt country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    @Tauhei Notts
    “I love my dog but that doesn’t mean I should be allowed to marry the bitch.”

    Thats what you think……
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/8179132/Australian-man-marries-pet-dog-Honey.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Lucia Maria (1,988 comments) says:

    Once you amend the marriage act to “allow” same sex unions, you effectively take away legal recognition of marriage and replace it with a form of domestic partnership for romantic sexual partnerships. Then the standards for what is expected of such partnerships fall, making life even more difficult for women, children and poor people.

    Robert P. George, a Princeton politics Professor explains it better:

    … it takes away the legal recognition of marriage — a comprehensive union of persons ordered to having and rearing a family (on procreation’s intrinsic link to marriage, see here and here) — and offers in its place legal recognition of a form of domestic partnership for romantic-sexual partners (in pairs for now, but that will not hold), be they same-sex or opposite-sex. Because these domestic partnerships are not actually marriages, despite the appropriation of the label; there is no intelligible basis in them for the norms of monogamy, exclusivity, and the pledge of permanence that structure and help to define marriage as historically understood in our law and culture. Of course, many people’s understanding of, and authentic commitment to, these norms has already eroded substantially since the 1960s under the pressure of sexual-revolution ideology. They will now erode further, though for a while some people who are still “evolving” (as President Obama might put it) toward the complete embrace of that ideology will be moved by sentimentality (which will seem increasingly quaint) and the residue of the “old morality” to cling to the belief that “marriages” (same-sex or opposite-sex) should be monogamous and sexually exclusive. And the erosion of these beliefs (and practices in line with them) will further wound our communities — especially mothers, children, and the poor.

    So to amend the marriage act would be an act of supreme irresponsibility on behalf of the Government, were they to do what people want them to do. Though, New Zealand would basically deserve the effects.

    Link: Sex and the Empire State

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. beautox (406 comments) says:

    I think my dog wants to marry me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    @Andrei – The Soviet’s were so determined to deny the existence of homosexuality, any of Tchaikovsky’s correspondence alluding to it was suppressed. You would find it difficult to find anyone who believed non-heterosexual life was easy in the Soviet Union.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    @Courage Wolf

    “Don’t you ever wonder why those who consider gay marriage an ‘assault’ are Christians who believe in fairy tales and imaginary higher beings?”

    Keep it simple Courage Wolf.
    Just call people who think it is silly to change the meaning of a word (Because that is what it is.) neocons, racists and fundamentalists (Crimethink).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. reid (15,531 comments) says:

    That’s the same argument that was advocated by the anti-inter-racial marriage group.

    There’s a difference between a social institution which has been in place throughout history across all civilisations and a historically fleeting policy aimed at people of a particular race.

    It suits lefties and those useful idiots who support them, to conflate the two but as you can see from the above comments, most people here do in fact get it.

    Let them have a civil union, just don’t call it marriage – marriage is man, women, kids. We can even pass a special Civil Union Act if they like. The first clause in it will be: “Nothing in this Act shall affect any provisions of the Marriage Act.

    What the hell’s wrong with that, one asks? They want it, they have it. But no, instead the gays and the useful idiots who support them want to conflate gay behaviour with straight institutions. It’s not good enough for them, to have their own institution, for them, and straights have our own institution, for us. That’s apparently, not good enough.

    The only possible outcome of officially conflating marriage with gays is that it makes generations to come who grow up in that regime, think that marriage = sex, which cheapens the whole thing, in everyone’s eyes. Of course to a gay, it IS all about sex, what else is it about. That’s the definition of gay. Sex. To straights however a marriage = children. That’s the difference, so let’s not have any tainting of that institution in the minds of generations to come, and let’s not have any useful idiots who conflate this proposition with human rights. It is nothing of the sort, and never has been. It’s a social engineering movement of the most grotesque kind, and how anyone can’t see straight through it for what it really is, is quite beyond me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. dave (985 comments) says:

    am not aware of any poll showing support for having prisoners vote.
    No need, when select committee submissions can provide enough of an indication of support.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. James (1,338 comments) says:

    Contrary to the Christian bigots marriage was NOT a religious institution in the first place and indeed pre-dated it by some time.Gay marriage has existed throughout history,it was ok in ancient Rome…hell even Indian tribes practised it in before the US was founded.Marriage isn’t a Christian creation… anyone is entitled to seek one if they so choose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. DavidR (102 comments) says:

    ” marriage is man, women, kids” – How many women, Reid?

    So, all those hetrosexual couples with no children can’t be married then. Is that what you’re saying reid? What about those whos kids have grown-up and left home, like mine have? Are their parents not married now?

    That’s a very shallow definition of marriage and quite meaningless really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    @James
    “Gay marriage has existed throughout history,it was ok in ancient Rome…hell even Indian tribes practised it in before the US was founded”

    “it”
    And “it” was called gay-marriage?
    Marriage?
    Was “it”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. reid (15,531 comments) says:

    Contrary to the Christian bigots marriage was NOT a religious institution in the first place and indeed pre-dated it by some time.

    What’s your point James? Who cares if Christians, Muslims etc conflate religion with marriage, that’s not what we’re discussing. We’re discussing marriage as the institution across history across civilisations, as a human practice. Who cares if at some point in time some people decided to couple religion to it? That’s not what we’re discussing, I repeat.

    So, all those hetrosexual couples with no children can’t be married then. Is that what you’re saying reid?

    No Dave. Der. I’m talking about how marriage is held in people’s minds, as an institution.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Courage Wolf (559 comments) says:

    There’s a difference between a social institution which has been in place throughout history across all civilisations and a historically fleeting policy aimed at people of a particular race.

    Let them have a civil union, just don’t call it marriage – marriage is man, women, kids. We can even pass a special Civil Union Act if they like. The first clause in it will be: “Nothing in this Act shall affect any provisions of the Marriage Act.

    Actually if you look to history, marriage means one man (usually rich) having many concubines – King Solomon, as an example. The marriage you see today (lavish weddings, expensive blood diamond rings, etc) between a man and a woman is a result of Hollywood movies etc. The simple fact is this – marriage, civil unions and de facto relationships of two years or more are exactly the same thing under the law. To simplify the law, they should all have the same name to reflect their equal legal status. Anything else you want to throw in – like ‘sacred’ significance, etc. Bear zero weight in the law.

    I for one would rather the government spend more time cutting tax and introducing a youth wage rather than amend anomalies in the law. What I do have a problem with, however, is fundamentalist Christians thinking that allowing gay people to marriage is the end of society as we know it. See this graph as an example:

    http://www.existentialpunk.com/.a/6a00d83452358069e20105360e8997970b-800wi

    The only possible outcome of officially conflating marriage with gays is that it makes generations to come who grow up in that regime, think that marriage = sex, which cheapens the whole thing, in everyone’s eyes. Of course to a gay, it IS all about sex, what else is it about. That’s the definition of gay. Sex. To straights however a marriage = children.

    Firstly, the fact that you think gays can only have a relationship that is about sex and not other relationship factors such as companionship and commitment and mutual support is rather prejudicial. And secondly, if by your definition marriage equals children for straight people, you might want to pop down to your Church and tell the congregation that if there is a young couple who are intending to marry, that unless they are going to have children, then they should not be getting married, otherwise it’s all about sex. You might also want to condemn all the couples you know who are married but choose not to have children – as by your definition they are destroying and cheapening the regime of marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. reid (15,531 comments) says:

    Dave apologies I didn’t see your post above Davids to whom I was referring. Everyone, David’s the der, not dave…

    Apparently I’m a der, as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. reid (15,531 comments) says:

    Firstly, the fact that you think gays can only have a relationship that is about sex and not other relationship factors such as companionship and commitment and mutual support is rather prejudicial.

    No it’s not at all. It’s a factual statement. If being gay is not about sex, what the hell is it about? That is the only repeat only difference between a gay person and a straight person, the way that person has sex. That is a bald, plain, cold, hard fact you can’t argue with.

    Now hysterical people read that and immediately think I’m saying that that is all gays are about – sex. i.e. that gays don’t have feelings and aspirations and all the other things we real human beings have. Hysterical people think that when I point out that plain hard bald obvious undeniable fact, that I’m not recognising gays are human as well. So to those hysterical people, I’ll repeat my first para with the bits highlighted that prove I also recognise that gays are humans with everything that we humans have…

    No it’s not at all. It’s a factual statement. If being gay is not about sex, what the hell is it about? That is the only repeat only difference between a gay person and a straight person, the way that person has sex. That is a bald, plain, cold, hard fact you can’t argue with.

    CW, have you ever considered the carbon output generated by the amount of time spent explaining basic facts to lefties on all sorts of things?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Andrei (2,430 comments) says:

    Gay marriage has existed throughout history,it was ok in ancient Rome….

    Ok so what is actually known about Gay Marriage in ancient Rome?

    Total support that the Ancient Romans counternanced Gay Marriage

    (1) The marriage of Nero who reportedly married two different men at different times.

    Ok he was a nutter as we all know and did some pretty strange things even in the eyes of his contemporaries who in the end dealt to him to rid themselves of him

    (2) The marriage of Emperor Elagabalus to Hierocles just under 200 years after Nero’s time.

    And he was even more nutty and dangerous than Nero and met a similar end of course because life under his rule was well intolerable shall we say.

    Of course Caligula another insane Roman Emperor married his sister so obviously the ancient Romans also supported incestuous marriages

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Courage Wolf (559 comments) says:

    No it’s not at all. It’s a factual statement. If being gay is not about sex, what the hell is it about? That is the only repeat only difference between a gay person and a straight person, the way that person has sex. That is a bald, plain, cold, hard fact you can’t argue with.

    Yes, therefore all the other factors in a relationship between two straight people and two gay people are the same.

    So if you have a straight couple who choose not to have children, then they also have other things such as cohabitation, romantic dates, shared income, etc. And their form of sex is penis in vagina or penis in rectum or penis in mouth.

    Likewise a gay couple have other things such as cohabitation, romantic dates, shared income, etc. And their form of sex is penis in rectum or penis in mouth.

    So if the only difference is that last factor, then what is your issue with calling it marriage? Why complicate it by calling it a civil union if they both share the exact same legal rights? And why is there no definition in the marriage to say that marriage must require children, or that marriage is when a husband sticks his penis into his wife’s vagina? Are there definitions in the Marriage Act talking about what forms of sex are acceptable? Is it the state’s place to define what can and cannot be done between a couple in a loving relationship? If the only difference is the way they have sex, then since when has marriage meant that it is for children? Because if that is the case, then a straight couple, by your definition, cannot be married if they are not going to have children.

    Also I have no idea what you mean by the carbon output of explaining things to lefties, considering I am an ACT voter. Explaining things to those who vote for United Future ’02, Destiny Party and Christian Heritage is where the most time is wasted considering their backwards views.

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

    GOFFIE should announce this proposition as the bold new vision Labour has for society to continue the social engineering and degeneration instituted by his predecessor.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Andrei (2,430 comments) says:

    And for those who say “what about the couple who can’t have children” as a argument against the point that the heart of the institution is procreation

    The Canons of the Church actually say that a marriage cannot be performed if one of the parties cannot have children. In practical terms this is an unknown at the time of the union (unless of course it is two men being married in which case of course it is known and obvious). But even in the aged where it is a man and women it is assumed that conception remains possible if unlikely cf Abraham and Sarah.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    @Courage Wolf

    “To simplify the law, they should all have the same name to reflect their equal legal status.”

    Simplify?

    Man and woman – equal legal status = change the words ‘man’ and ‘woman’ into person.
    Dog and sheep (Replace with any other animal of choice) – equal legal status = change the words ‘dog’ and ‘sheep’ into animal.
    House and barn – - equal legal status = change the words ‘house’ and ‘barn’ into building.

    Yep, that makes it simple.
    Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. reid (15,531 comments) says:

    Fuck you are dumb CW.

    Marriage in peoples minds = children and family. It’s the foundation of the family unit. It is the name given to the unit that humans use to reproduce. We are not talking about how any particular civilisation chose to interpret and practice it at any given point in time whether that’s today, in the last hundred years, in the last thousand or in the last ten thousand.

    No, we’re not talking about any of that, so bringing up examples of any such, is completely irrelevant.

    Now from a continuation of the species perspective, marriage is therefore critical and even animals practice it instinctively. It’s part of biological life and the whole thing is held together by nothing more than a collective attitude.

    Now if you disrupt that mechanism by tainting it with a brand that is incompatible with the fundamental purpose of it, what precisely do you think is going to happen. Perhaps that’s a bit too advanced a question for you, CW, so I’ll ask a simpler one. Is tainting that mechanism with a brand that is incompatible with the fundamental purpose of it, a good thing, or a bad thing?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Andrei (2,430 comments) says:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    @reid @12:49pm said “from a continuation of the species perspective, marriage is therefore critical and even animals practice it instinctively.”

    There isn’t a proposal to outlaw heterosexual marriage. What are you so afraid of?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. topherthegreat (14 comments) says:

    If you guys don’t like gay people so much, you should be blaming straight, normally married couples. They’re the ones who keep on making them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. dandy (26 comments) says:

    Andrei, Reid, and whomever else- since when does reproduction require “exactly one man and one woman”- all it requires is a single spermatazoa, egg, and an appropriate environment to incubate it- usually the uterus of a woman. Marriage isn’t defined by the task of/ability to reproduce, that’s a stupid proposition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. reid (15,531 comments) says:

    Rodders, if you don’t understand the issue, re-read all Andrei’s and my posts, it’s not difficult to understand.

    top, my brother is gay. I don’t hate them, I love them. This has nothing to do with any of that.

    dandy, so what? We’re talking about a social construct of fundamental importance to the continuation of our civilisation. So what if there are others ways to re-produce. That’s irrelevant, I’ve never said it was the only way, and it doesn’t make any difference to the proposition anyway.

    Fuck I’m getting really sick of explaining all this. Can’t you guys just get it FFS?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    reid – I have read your posts. Stop being so fucking patronising.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. F E Smith (3,273 comments) says:

    “Actually if you look to history, marriage means one man (usually rich) having many concubines – King Solomon, as an example.”

    This is rubbish, Courage Wolf. In history most people have been poor, agrarian workers or what we would today call middle class townspeople. With either group, marriage has been generally between one man and one woman, because that is usually all the wife that the man could afford! Just because most, if not all, societies recognised polygamy does not mean that it was generally practiced.

    And marriage has almost always been a religious institution- regardless of what time period and what religion/cult, marriage has usually been the prerogative of the priest.

    Interestingly, with the gay marriage argument gaining traction in many US states, the impetus for change of some sort is being caught up by the polygamy crowd http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/07/lawsuit-challenging-utahs-anti-polygamy.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. reid (15,531 comments) says:

    reid – I have read your posts. Stop being so fucking patronising.

    So do you think conflating gays with marriage won’t taint the brand then Rodders?

    Sorry yes I was being patronising but to me it’s quite obvious what the problem is and human rights has nothing to do with it. That’s useful idiot territory I overcame on this issue a long long time ago so I can’t really understand why some people seem to wallow around in the human rights morass without ever moving beyond it to see this issue for what it really is: a tainting of the brand sold in the guise of human rights.

    If that’s not useful idiot territory then what the fuck is?

    Interestingly, with the gay marriage argument gaining traction in many US states, the impetus for change of some sort is being caught up by the polygamy crowd

    Well that’s a good thing isn’t it, FE. Perhaps quite soon it’ll be the done to have a honeymoon orgy, instead of the boring old traditional one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. iMP (2,152 comments) says:

    Are gay activists glad their parents were heterosexual?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    @reid – apology accepted. I just can’t believe marriage as an institution could be damaged when there are presently many unmarried parents raising children (i.e. “substance over form.”) I don’t see that as “useful idiot” territory as the people to that term was applied were wilfully blind to Stalin’s human rights abuses.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    Was there a:

    :”Who gives a rats arse” to tick?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    @Rodders
    “heterosexual marriage”?
    Are you serious?
    Like a new innovation, a afree gift or alcoholic whiskey?
    Aargh…
    That is why we have two different terms, they are Marriage and Civil Union.
    It is (and I will say it s l o w l y…) because they are two different things and have different meanings.
    We use different words for things that have different meanings otherwise communication becomes %$#^ difficult!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    @Other_Andy – Get a life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. fatboy slim (77 comments) says:

    “Are gay activists glad their parents were heterosexual?”

    Now that’s a show stopper line.He he…. well done iMP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. reid (15,531 comments) says:

    I just can’t believe marriage as an institution could be damaged when there are presently many unmarried parents raising children (i.e. “substance over form.”)

    Rodders this is not the only front from which the institution of marriage is under attack. The income from the state making solo parenting possible for tens of thousands; the pill since the 50′s allowing casual sex; feminism which at its heart teaches women that to be successful they need to think and act like men, not as women; the design of society making two incomes a necessity, all of these trends have had their effect.

    I’m not saying anything about where these trends come from, whether they’re by design or merely accidental outcomes of mere coincidence having the effect they are, on the institution of marriage. That’s irrelevant. All I’m saying is it is a fact that these trends exist and it is a fact they are having negative effects on the institution of marriage. I’m just not sure I want another one added to the list.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. GJ (329 comments) says:

    I understand that once Homosexuality gets a hold in a society that society will self destruct within three generations. If that is correct (and I understand history shows that it is) then it has to be a very sobering thought.
    However countries that promote marriage (such as Singapore does) tend to prosper.
    Families (Mum Dad and the kids) were designed for a purpose, its just a shame so many don’t understand or see the benefit from good families working as they should.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Spiritfree (79 comments) says:

    Reid: Marriage in peoples minds = children and family.

    How silly is that statement? Of course, the word “many” should be inserted directly after the word “in”.

    But aside from using such a statement as a means of clobbering the concept of gays and marriage, what about the gross insult to those straight married couples who don’t have children, either through choice or emotionally painful inability?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Spiritfree (79 comments) says:

    GJ: However countries that promote marriage (such as Singapore does) tend to prosper.

    Silly statements abound today. I mean, as if Singapore is prospering because of that state’s attitude to marriage. LOL!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    @reid – I believe that people need to make their own judgement as to what relationship suits them. The Homosexual Law Reform Act was passed 25 years ago, this week. You will recall the extraordinary predictions that were made at the time as to the possible consequences of that change. IMHO as long as it isn’t made compulsory, then i’m not worrying about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. reid (15,531 comments) says:

    Spiritfree it would seem is a misnomer for it should be Intellectfree.

    Evidently nothing I have said above has sunk in.

    …Er

    …Sorry, but I can’t be arsed repeating it all again.

    But aside from using such a statement as a means of clobbering the concept of gays and marriage

    I don’t want to clobber it, Spiritfree. I want to do this to it, zillions of times. Then I want to shoot it with one of these.

    @reid – I believe that people need to make their own judgement as to what relationship suits them.

    I’m not saying they can’t, Rodders. Why do you think I am?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Spiritfree (79 comments) says:

    iMP: Are gay activists glad their parents were heterosexual?

    I imagine that you think that that was a clever comment. But perhaps you should try addressing your question to the children of gays and lesbians.

    You could try asking the two children of a gay friend of mine. Or I could probably get the number of the son of another gay friend of mine. He – the son – is in his mid-20′s now. I haven’t spoken with him for years, but I know for a fact that when I knew him very well he was very happy with his father.

    I should warn you against passing any comment on these people, as you don’t know them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. reid (15,531 comments) says:

    I imagine that you think that that was a clever comment.

    I thought it was, Spiritfree. Well done iMP.

    Pray tell Spiritfree why you take offence at it. Why would your friends take offence at it? Why pray tell, would anyone take offence at it?

    I should warn you against passing any comment on these people, as you don’t know them.

    Since I have just passed comment on those people, what’s going to happen to me now?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    @Rodders

    “@Other_Andy – Get a life.”

    Well,…but…..uh…..,no,…but then, uh, Oh…..get a life.
    Such intellect.
    OK Rodders, you’re right and I am wrong..congratulations.
    Happy?
    Cheers!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    @reid @1.49pm – I had interpreted your previous “of course to a gay, it IS all about sex, what else is it about” as a comment on the quality of their relationships.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Spiritfree (79 comments) says:

    Reid, I notice that you’ve posted 7854 comments on here.

    I for one am not going to bother reading another one of them.

    Please spare us any more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. reid (15,531 comments) says:

    @reid @1.49pm – I had interpreted your previous “of course to a gay, it IS all about sex, what else is it about” as a comment on the quality of their relationships.

    No it’s a factual observation that the only difference between a gay person and a straight person is the way they have sex. I’m not making any judgement statement on it, at all, simply observing that this is the only repeat only difference between the two. I don’t understand and I’m not saying you do yourself Rodders but I don’t understand why some people and Spiritfree seems one, who think that merely by pointing out a fact of human life, one is intentionally or unintentionally causing offence to some group. I mean that interpretation is just nuts. Sorry, it is. Why the fuck would anyone take offence at a fact? Duh.

    Like I said Rodders, I don’t think you’re one who does. But some do.

    Update: now I know Spiritfree is one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Scott Chris (5,677 comments) says:

    @Lucia Maria (683) Says:
    July 16th, 2011 at 11:44 am

    Regarding Professor Robert P George: A wiki check, for what it’s worth, describes him as “one of America’s most influential conservative Christian thinkers.”
    I think these credentials are are an important factor to consider when weighing the worth of his opinion on the matter of gay marriage. A Christian perspective is inherently irrational.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Andrei (2,430 comments) says:

    You will recall the extraordinary predictions that were made at the time as to the possible consequences of that change.

    Yes one of the extraordinary predictions was “next they will be asking to get married”. At which the proponents of the law changed scoffed “don’t be ridiculous, that’s absurd”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Scott Chris (5,677 comments) says:

    @reid (7,855) Says:
    July 16th, 2011 at 1:14 pm

    On what basis are you arguing that the marriage brand will be ‘tainted’ if gays are allowed to join the club? Are they somehow lesser beings? Is the quality of hetrosexual love and commitment superior to that of the gay’s?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. reid (15,531 comments) says:

    On what basis are you arguing that the marriage brand will be ‘tainted’ if gays are allowed to join the club?

    On the basis Scott that the purpose of marriage is the vehicle for procreation of the species and gays have nothing to do with that.

    Are they somehow lesser beings?

    No and if you read what I have said here today you will see that nothing I have said could in anyway be reasonably interpreted as saying that. Any accusation of such is mere hysteria. If you think I’ve said that anywhere, then pray quote me.

    Is the quality of hetrosexual love and commitment superior to that of the gay’s?

    No, it’s different, that’s all. That’s all I’ve said. I have already said I am not making any value judgements over this, in any way. Since it is a fact that it is different, what the hell is wrong with what they already have, which is the Civil Union Act. What pray tell, is wrong with that, as a full and final solution to this since as I say, it is an undeniable fact that they are different. This is not discrimination, in any way. Quite the contrary, it is recognition. Why does the movement in favour of this keep playing wedge politics? Why? Why is what they have already, not enough?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Andrei (2,430 comments) says:

    It’s not a club Scott Chris – it is a choice available to anyone, that choice being that you want to join with someone else to create a family and raise the next generation.

    Now whether we like it or not the way things are set up for each of us if we aspire to do this the choice of partner is restricted to being someone of the opposite gender.

    If this causes you distress you could always take it up with God as to why things are set up this way. Or if you’re a non believer perhaps Richard Dawkins can provide the answer.

    I have no idea myself why it is that way but it is and I accept that it is and that it cannot really be changed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    @Andrei @2.22pm – Well, it is 25 years (rather a long time for “next.”) I recall hearing predictions that all public toilets would be required to be unisex and that legalisation of bestiality, pedophilia and incest would follow.
    Many people had genuine concern of the consequences of the law being passed but would anyone want to go back to the days when male homosexuals could be punished by imprisonment (with other men!)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Andrei (2,430 comments) says:

    would anyone want to go back to the days when male homosexuals could be punished by imprisonment (with other men!)

    They never were of course – there were no vice policemen peeking into windows and dragging people off to prison. People were openly gay and nobody cared.

    Hell there was even probably a Prime Minister of England who was gay when it was still illegal, and if he wasn’t gay most people thought he was – didn’t give a toss.

    What the law was useful for and when it was employed was for public toilet sex cf Frank Sargeson

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    @Andrei – I don’t have the details of the 1980 police raid & arrests at Westside Sauna although I don’t believe the HLRA was intended to legalise sex in public toilets.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Viking2 (10,713 comments) says:

    I believe that people need to make their own judgement as to what relationship suits them. The Homosexual Law Reform Act was passed 25 years ago, this week. You will recall the extraordinary predictions that were made at the time as to the possible consequences of that change. IMHO as long as it isn’t made compulsory, then i’m not worrying about it.

    Phew; count yourself lucky then that we got rid of the last Labour Govt.
    And, remember who they were and what they did for NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. scanner (340 comments) says:

    What a crock of shit.
    Same sex “marriages” are nothing than a bunch of dungpunchers and carpet munchers trying to hang a cloak of respectability over an unnatural act, more social engineering, I thought this bullshit moved to New York three years ago.
    The only question is what shade of brown are the wedding gowns ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    @scanner – thanks for sharing your effluent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. DJP6-25 (1,229 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria 11:44. That’s the best argument I’ve heard so far. Families are an obstacle to socialisim. So they have to be destroyed. You don’t have to be a christian fundamentalist to think ‘civil unions’ are a bad idea.

    cheers

    David Prosser

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. reid (15,531 comments) says:

    IMHO as long as it isn’t made compulsory, then i’m not worrying about it.

    But V2 the gay law reform has nothing to do with this. There have been many stages in this process, this is the ultimate.

    Personally unless someone can advance a rationale explaining why Civil Union isn’t sufficient as full and final, I’m calling bad destructive evil wrong insidious poisonous move on this issue.

    No-one has even attempted to advance that today. Go ahead, if you can.

    Otherwise, is it not the case, that if we do this today, in say 3 generations, 60 years, marriage will be a thing of the past? That life won’t be about family but about pleasure for pleasure sake? That’s where we’re heading already on a number of fronts as I enumerated in my 1:36 and this is another step in that direction.

    So I personally don’t see anything positive and everything negative in this move and therefore, what is the point. As I’ve said, proponents argue the human rights side. That’s bollocks. It’s not discriminatory. Why. Gays are different. They are, by definition, different. Why is it discriminatory to (a) point this out and/or (b) recognise it as such, in legislation. A gay person is not the same as a straight person, with respect to their sexual preference. They are. This is what all the human rights legislation is about. There is nothing except sexuality that separates a gay person from a straight person. They are equal under law in every way. Look it up. That’s what it says.

    So since marriage also is about sex for what is procreation about if not about sex, why then isn’t it sufficient, by law, to accommodate that difference, in legislation about gay vs straight relationships? Isn’t the law supposed to be an accurate and just and true reflection of society as it is and should be. And since it is a fact this is the only difference then why is it not just that the difference is reflected in the law? As being different. Because they are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    @reid – I believe that quote was mine rather than V2′s (not easy to tell from reading his comment @3:43pm) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. reid (15,531 comments) says:

    Roger Rodders. Apologies, V2.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. starboard (2,447 comments) says:

    dirty fags..marriage = man and woman , nothing to do with sodomisers and dykes. Try as you may but you wont win this argument..filthy habit being gay. See a doctor.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    And just when I presumed that no-one could be as charming as scanner, in slithers starboard…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. starboard (2,447 comments) says:

    free world pal..Im entitled to my opinion on it..just because I dont wrap it up in cotton wool for the likes of your sort doesnt make it wrong eh wodders..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Scott Chris (5,677 comments) says:

    @reid (7,863) Says:
    July 16th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
    “Personally unless someone can advance a rationale explaining why Civil Union isn’t sufficient as full and final, I’m calling bad destructive evil wrong insidious poisonous move on this issue.”

    A civil union isn’t sufficient because it is a generic brand, and the label that gays covet is ‘marriage’. Simple psychology really. Marriage may hold a sacred position in your mind, but it is a construct like every other institution, and your attachment to it is nostalgic and sentimental.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    @starboard – at least you make me laugh (as Alf Garnett used to) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. scanner (340 comments) says:

    Poor old Rodders, is that the sound of the closet door opening, me thinks ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    @scanner – no, I don’t own one

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. starboard (2,447 comments) says:

    ..yep..make sure it doesnt slam you on the arse when you come out Rod..think of the bruising , how off putting ..”bawhahahaha!! G’nite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. mikenmild (8,790 comments) says:

    Rodders

    Not sure about the door, but some of the comments here are definitely ‘unhinged’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    mike – ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. tristanb (1,133 comments) says:

    God the Christians here are a hateful bunch. I’m glad God will see through their veneer of piety and send them to burn in Hell forever.

    Anyway, why not do as Karl was apparently planning (seeing as Labour’s already taking a few more pages from his book) and get rid of marriage as a government entity. It will just be a civil union according the govt books.

    People will still get their marriages through whatever church, agency or religious group, but as far as the government is concerned it is just a civil union. People will still be happy because they’ve had a wedding and can tell people they’re married, but on (government) paper it’s just a union. A civil union will be a sole relationship between two non-related adults.

    That way gay guys can find a church that’ll wed them. Proper Christians can get married in their local church, have wonderful photos, speeches etc. Fundie Christians can get some conman to rip them off, dunk their heads in water and try and brainwash others. Hindus can have whatever excessive ceremony they’re willing to pay for. Live and let live.

    All these bonds will legally be civil unions, but you paste whatever title you want to give “marriage”, “cupping ceremony”, “lezzylinking” when you tell your friends.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. mikenmild (8,790 comments) says:

    Good point.

    Any reason to have a Marriage Act at all? Why did I need to pay the government to get married?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. starboard (2,447 comments) says:

    ..fucking some guy in the arse is not natural or normal..couple of lezzies together is not natural or normal..they cant naturally have a baby can they…. if they must wallow in sewage etc fine , do it in private but dont try and normalise it..cos it aint n-a-t-u-r-a-l …ps ..wod and milkymike..are you two a couple?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. mikenmild (8,790 comments) says:

    Methinks starboard doth protest too much…

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

    Fuck I am keen on gay marriage, because it winds the sky fairy bible bashers up so much.
    Marriage is not for a male and a female who cannot have children, very generous of some.

    Never mind bible bashers if you have a child who is gay you can do what one of the extreme brethren did and throw him or her out of the house.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Spiritfree (79 comments) says:

    starboard: ..fucking some guy in the arse is not natural or normal..

    Not for you, obviously, but it is for me and to be honest, you have no right to tell me what is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. hj (5,692 comments) says:

    I think gay marriage upsets people because they think God makes us and the Good Lord doesn’t screw up. Farmers will know however, that cows hump cows and bulls hump bulls and lambs are born with 5 legs. Gays didn’t choose to be gay it is an internal mechanism. All we can do is observe and if a gay couple form a long term stable relationship we can see that that is what their mechanisms have decided for them. If we have a problem with that we either take it up with the Lord or Charles Darwin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. reid (15,531 comments) says:

    A civil union isn’t sufficient because it is a generic brand, and the label that gays covet is ‘marriage’. Simple psychology really. Marriage may hold a sacred position in your mind, but it is a construct like every other institution, and your attachment to it is nostalgic and sentimental.

    Fucking d’oh Chris this is my very point. It is a social construct as I already said in the thread. So why contaminate it with stuff that’s not like it is? Who doesn’t want marriage to be thought of as pure and sacred? Everyone does. That’s the social construct of marriage my friend.

    Now as I’ve said, if you introduce gays into it, you break the pure and sacred mold, for it becomes purely and simply about sex. Since gays are, yes, they are, about sex. Not procreation, not making love, but sex. Pure and simple. That’s what they are having, when they do it. Call it making love if you wish to, but personally, I don’t understand how a man can love another man, when what they get exited about is fucking them up the arse. This is why the proponents who disguise their poisonous argument in the guise of human rights, want it. They want to make the act of making a baby, another human being, as dignified as two guys fucking each other up the arse. Sorry to be graphic and correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t that precisely what at the end of the day, this is all about?

    If you agree, my simple question is: is this a good thing, or a bad thing?

    Never mind bible bashers if you have a child who is gay you can do what one of the extreme brethren did and throw him or her out of the house.

    Grumpy I’m a Christian and my brother is gay and I love him, but I did have to throw him out of my house…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. starboard (2,447 comments) says:

    thats fine spiritfree..but you acknowledge its not natural? ..its not normal?..if thats the case sodomise away..but dont bring marriage into the equation , thats for us normallies..not for you lot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. mikenmild (8,790 comments) says:

    It’s not a ‘good’ thing or a ‘bad’ thing. It’s just a thing. So a man can’t love another man, eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. reid (15,531 comments) says:

    So a man can’t love another man, eh?

    Apparently, they can mm. I suggest you get out a bit more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. hj (5,692 comments) says:

    From New Scientist:

    Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality

    There are numerous evolutionary mechanisms that might explain homosexual behaviour, which is common in many species of animals

    “Simple reasoning shows that evolution cannot explain homosexuality – how would a homosexuality gene get selected for?” “Why have the genetic traits predisposing to homosexuality not been eliminated long ago?”

    Such arguments are surprisingly common – and completely wrong.

    Homosexual behaviour has been observed in hundreds of species, from bison to penguins. It is still not clear to what extent homosexuality in humans or other animals is genetic (rather than, say, due to hormonal extremes during embryonic development), but there are many mechanisms that could explain why gene variants linked to homosexuality are maintained in a population.

    A common assumption is that homosexuality means not having children, but this is not necessarily true, especially in cultures other than our own. Until it became acceptable for same-sex couples to live together in western countries, many homosexual people had partners of the opposite sex. In some traditional societies, various forms of non-exclusive homosexuality were common.
    Reasons why

    Among animals, homosexual behaviour is usually non-exclusive. For instance, in some populations of Japanese macaques, females prefer female sexual partners to male ones but still mate with males – they are bisexual, in other words.
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Spiritfree (79 comments) says:

    Starboard, we have agreed on one major issue here, but in this, frankly, you need to get over your belief that homosexuality is abhorrent and do something about it. It’s not homosexuals that have a problem, it’s you.

    Attitudes like yours towards homosexuality have created agonies for generations of people who were born homosexual. I for one (and I know that this has been the case for many, many others) had a huge problem over accepting it in myself. This was me taking on the conditioning that society and my parents had instilled in me, and which came from people with attitudes like yours. Fortunately, for young people nowadays, attitudes have changed and increasingly it is reactionary attitudes like yours which are seen as being the problem.

    Both heterosexuality and homosexuality are perfectly valid. You – and others who have a problem with it – need to accept this. That the overwhelming majority of people are heterosexual is just fine, but that does not mean that homosexuality is wrong. It never was and it never will be. If anything is ‘wrong’ in this debate, it is the judging of the sexual behaviour of others. I repeat – though I rephrase – what I said earlier, which is that homosexuality is normal for me. You need to get over it.

    You and others also need to accept that treating homosexuals as second-class citizens by only allowing them a more limited form of legal recognition of their relationship is, though a better situation than there was before, still an insult.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. BlairM (2,266 comments) says:

    No, hell no. The reason Civil Unions passed was because it was NOT marriage. You are not going to get gay marriage passed… not in this parliament or for a long time, if ever.

    I don’t think marriage has anything to do with government, and if you can find a church that will marry you to your pet goat, then all power to you. But inasmuch as government wants to have a say in it, it’s between guys and dolls. Sorry. Your weird thing with your brother from another mother will have to stay a weird thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. nasska (9,506 comments) says:

    I reckon Trevor de Cleene pretty much summed it all up a few years ago when he said…”I don’t care what they do or where they do it so long as they don’t frighten the horses”.

    It was good, however, to see the rosary beads get a workout this afternoon. The Godbotherers have had it too easy over the past few weeks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Scott Hamilton (235 comments) says:

    Andrei is certainly saying some silly things today. Marx wanted kids raised by the state? Trotsky and Stalin fell out over how far the state should go in breaking up the trad family and promoting homosexuality? I’d love to see some references for that stuff. There was a brief period of liberalisation in Russia after the 1917 revolution, and during this period divorce and abortion were legalised, but by the late ’20s things were swinging the other way, as Stalin promoted a very old-fashioned model of the family.

    Andrei’s ignorance of the impact of anti-gay laws is more concerning. He claims that cops never arrested anyone for being gay: is he not familiar with the story of Frank Sargeson, one of the two or three most important writers this country has produced? Sargeson was arrested after being caught, in a private bedroom, with an older man – the older bloke was sentenced to several years hard labour, and the young writer avoided prison only by promising to seclude himself for a long period of time on his uncle’s farm deep in the King Country. Sargeson’s brush with the law haunted him for the rest of his life and even forced him to change his name. There were hundreds of folks who had the same sort of experience as Sargeson before the legislation of 1985 took the state out of the bedroom.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Andrei (2,430 comments) says:

    Who is treating homosexuals as second class citizens hmmmm?

    Nobody is.

    You can have your cake with two bridegroom dolls on it if you want – nobody’s stopping you.

    You probably can find a minister to perform a ceremony in a church if you really want to, hell there are plenty who would be only too eager to oblige and nobody is going to stop you – though if it were a Catholic or Orthodox priest he would undoubtedly be defrocked for it but that wouldn’t be your issue it would be his.

    What you cannot do is create a procreative relationship with someone of the same gender, can’t be done old china. Its not “homophobia” that’s blocking you – it’s nature.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. reid (15,531 comments) says:

    There were hundreds of folks who had the same sort of experience as Sargeson before the legislation of 1985 took the state out of the bedroom.

    Which was the right thing to do but what’s your point Scott? What does that have to do with anything?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Scott Hamilton (235 comments) says:

    I was just responding to Andrei’s bizarre claim that anti-gay legislation wasn’t actually used to prosecute and imprison people before 1985, reid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    thats for us normallies.

    Jesus starboard, if anybody has ever given hetrosexuality a bad name its you, re-read some of your comments especially the ones on race, you are not fucking normal, you hate everything

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. reid (15,531 comments) says:

    I hate everything too Paul.

    Does this mean I’m not normal, as well?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    Sometimes you get the feeling that elements of the gay community are like magpies, they like collecting ‘shiny’ things and so forth.

    Except you exchange ‘shiny’ for ‘camp’…………… “oh lets all go to church!! those magnificent phallic towers!! those special pastor ‘dresses’ and little white collars!!, we can stand up the front all cross like and tell people what to do, and if they don’t do it we can smite them!!! take that! you naughty krissssssss-chins !!

    Yep, church can be pretty gay!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    Its certainly not healthy Reid, hate uses up too much energy and you just end up a sad miserabke bastard.

    Wind mills, tilting at…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    Nobody is.

    You can have your cake with two bridegroom dolls on it if you want – nobody’s stopping you.

    You probably can find a minister to perform a ceremony in a church if you really want to, hell there are plenty who would be only too eager to oblige and nobody is going to stop you – though if it were a Catholic or Orthodox priest he would undoubtedly be defrocked for it but that wouldn’t be your issue it would be his.

    What you cannot do is create a procreative relationship with someone of the same gender, can’t be done old china. Its not “homophobia” that’s blocking you – it’s nature.

    Well said Andrei, there are many gay activists that seem to think that a refusal to hand over whatever they demand is somehow bigotry or homophobic.

    Gay activists have no respect for heterosexual institutions, which marriage is but one. They have the same rights (with civil unions), and now they are demanding we hand over the tradition as well.

    Who are the real bigots?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Scott Hamilton (235 comments) says:

    Papers Past is amazing – here is the Evening Post’s note on the conviction of Norris Davey, who would later rename himself Frank Sargeson, for ‘indecent assault on a male’ in 1929:
    http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=search&d=EP19291030.2.126&srpos=1&e=——-10–1—-0norris+davey–
    Sargeson was caught by cops having consensual sex with an older man in a private bedroom, and dragged through the courts. Sadly, I fear that some of the commenters here would favour the return to the period before 1985, when the police could persecute people like Sargeson.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. reid (15,531 comments) says:

    I quite like being a bastard Paul. It gives me a warm feeling in my tummy.

    Scott, who cares?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    Sargeson was caught by cops having consensual sex with an older man in a private bedroom, and dragged through the courts. Sadly, I fear that some of the commenters here would favour the return to the period before 1985, when the police could persecute people like Sargeson.

    Nope, but it would be nice to be able to take the kids to Rabbit island in Nelson without them seeing two grown men sucking or bumming each other in the pine trees.

    People did complain but were shouted down as ‘bigots’ and ‘homophobes’. And it was even said that what was happening was a ‘jewel’ of the district, and “a beautiful thing”.

    Not my idea of beauty, but that’s because I am so full of hate I guess, oh well, perhaps one day I will be able to cope with men rooting in public, I just need more time…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Andrei (2,430 comments) says:

    BS Scott Hamilton. he never wrote about that particular incident but he sure as hell did write about cruising in Wellington in the late 1920s.

    And he actually cut a deal and testified against the other party.

    Not that it matters its a sordid little incident that happened more than eighty years ago – long before any of us were even born.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Longknives (4,048 comments) says:

    Starboard- ” A couple of lezzies together is not natural or normal”

    I happen to think two hot girls together is perfectly natural and normal!! (In a purely artistic sense of course…)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    Anyway back to the post, why should Parliament give this anytime at all,? much more pressing things to worry about.

    The only thing that is enevitable DPF is that we are all going to die of heart failure ,its a long way down the track before this bollocks would be any sort of priority .

    Also why the desire to get married I’m married and I wonder quite often think WTF am I doing

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. reid (15,531 comments) says:

    Not my idea of beauty, but that’s because I am so full of hate I guess,

    Indeed you are Shunda and probably you require compulsory tolerance and anger management courses to teach you how to become once again a good, decent and gay-friendly citizen. Shame on you.

    Let’s hope you enjoy the compulsory kinesthetic lessons, as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    Presumably most of us here have gay family, work mates, members of clubs etc.

    How many here that have commented here today would speak face to face or give advice like
    ..filthy habit being gay. See a doctor. to these family members work mates etc

    I’ve taken the liberty of quoting Starboard as his eloquence truly amazes me

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Scott Hamilton (235 comments) says:

    Once again Andrei you don’t know what you’re talking about. Sargeson never wrote about cruising Wellington, and indeed never wrote explicitly about any aspect of his gay life – the reason why is not hard to guess. The point I was making is that you were quite wrong to suggest that people were not criminalised by anti-gay laws before 1985. You think it’s ‘sordid’ that Sargeson and his lover were having consensual sex in a private setting, but I find the fact that cops burst in on them and dragged them through the courts to be far more distasteful. Given that you’ve now been informed that people were in fact criminalised by anti-gay laws before 1985, do you still think the repeal of these laws was a bad thing?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Scott Chris (5,677 comments) says:

    There’s going to be an interesting debate, in the not too distant future, when stem cell generated organs such as testes, ovaries and wombs will be available for transplant. Will Reid finally have to accept that homosexual lust has been superseded by an act of loving procreation, when chicks can have balls and guys can lay eggs?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. LabourDoesntWork (278 comments) says:

    My 2 cents. Homosexual marriage is a symptom – not the problem. Let’s be honest: The decline of marriage itself as an institution is the only reason for society entertaining the idea of homosexual marriage.
    Consider that the voices openly speaking against marriage for decades – the feminists and other leftwing radicals – are those that have been most busily advocating homosexual marriage. Paradox? Not at all… Fact is, they’d *love* to take credit for the decline of heterosexual marriage even as they support ‘gay’ marriage. But the people who have really done the most to destroy marriage are heterosexuals themselves. Which brings me back to the first point.
    Liberals who like to pat themselves on the back for supporting further “progress” in societal evolution are totally missing the real change occurring. As if something relevant to a tiny fraction of the population (basic logic tells me only a minority of this minority will be interested in getting married) is more important or worthy of notice than the general decline of marriage itself. This, and the apparent paradox I mentioned, makes me think this is, at best, much more about being “trendy” than anything to do with celebrating marriage (at worst: maliciously attacking the very meaning and purpose of male-female marriage itself). Celebrating gay marriage when it’s a symptom of marriage decline in general? ….what a joke.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    No fucking way, a marriage is between a man and (guess what, a woman) Everyone said this would happen, they have their civil union, what the fuck is wrong with that.They can go and fuck themselves, sideways if they like.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    Will Reid finally have to accept that homosexual lust has been superseded by an act of loving procreation, when chicks can have balls and guys can lay eggs?

    Hell, I’ve always wanted a tail, could they do that too? also, could they make it wag when I’m happy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Spiritfree (79 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda: Nope, but it would be nice to be able to take the kids to Rabbit island in Nelson without them seeing two grown men sucking or bumming each other in the pine trees.

    Though there is a lot of beach at Rabbit Island, right? We’re talking about one end of a beach that is 4km long, right? That is a pretty long beach.

    Shunda, would you have a problem if you saw two men merely cuddling one another on the beach there?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. scanner (340 comments) says:

    Poofters should be fed up with a kilo of prunes, it might not cure them of faggotory but it sure will teach them what their arsehole was designed for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. marquess (2 comments) says:

    The problem with civil unions is while they work in a legal sense within New Zealand, when it comes to international recognition major issues arise, particularly in the areas of tourism and immigration.

    Fun fact, only 5 specific overseas unions are recognised as civil unions in NZ – UK, FI, DE, USA-VT and USA-NJ civil unions are recognised as such here. No other unions are, including marriages. They’re all treated as defacto. The problem is that for couples that may want to immigrate here, they will be treated as a defacto rather than a married couple. Not a problem, except defacto couples have a much harder time trying to immigrate.

    The other issue is that a civil union may not be recognised overseas. Not only does this mean that all couples (straight and gay!) that are overseas have a harder time trying to prove relationship status (have fun proving she really is your wife and that you don’t deserve to be thrown in a Saudi jail!) to overseas authorities, our marriage & tourism industries suffer as a result of couples being hesitant to have ceremonies here. After all, why bother going to all the effort if the shiny piece of paper is worthless in your home country?

    Then there are the arguments about arbitrary discrimination but that’s for another post :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    Shunda, would you have a problem if you saw two men merely cuddling one another on the beach there?

    Nope.

    But we are not talking about “cuddling on the beach” are we……… more like ‘frolicking’ in the bushes with no clothes on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    scanner @ 9:07pm seeks to give advice as to what an arsehole is for. And he continues to talk out of his !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. scanner (340 comments) says:

    Knew that one would nudge the blood pressure up ten points rodders, keep going son with a little more prodding we may set a new record.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    @scanner – my bp is fine (had it taken recently.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Spiritfree (79 comments) says:

    My next question, Shunda, if I may: would you have a problem if you saw two men merely cuddling one another anywhere that a man and a woman can be seen without a problem merely cuddling one another?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Fletch (5,721 comments) says:

    Working my way down through the posts, but I do agree with Reid. It IS all about the sex.
    Just look at the identifying terms – homosexual, and heterosexual
    ‘Sex’ is the component in both forms that distinguishes one from the other.

    The cold, hard, fact is that gays cannot have sex (coitus). They just can’t – it’s not possible. They can excite each other and come to some kind of climax, but that isn’t sexual intercourse. The anus is not a sexual organ, it’s the sewer line of the body.
    I’m not saying people can’t do what they want in the privacy of their own homes (and I’m sure they do), but let’s not pretend that it’s equivocal to heterosexual intercourse and create laws that try to make them both equal.

    Homosexual “sex” is a counterfeit; a sham; a mockery of the real act, and deserves to be called so. It doesn’t even take being religious to see it, all you need is common sense. This is Aristotelian logic – a belief in empirical observation and logical deduction which he called “teleology”. Teleology assumes that all things have a purpose and that the purpose of each thing can be discerned from its design and function. Anything that deviates from that design and function is therefore not normal.

    I’ll leave you with some of the testimony of Michael Glatze, a gay rights leader, and one-time editor of YGA (Young Gay America) magazine. He was a rising star in the movement until became a Christian and walked away from it.
    In part, he says –

    Homosexuality, delivered to young minds, is by its very nature pornographic. It destroys impressionable minds and confuses their developing sexuality; I did not realize this, however, until I was 30 years old.

    [..]

    It became clear to me, as I really thought about it – and really prayed about it – that homosexuality prevents us from finding our true self within. We cannot see the truth when we’re blinded by homosexuality.

    We believe, under the influence of homosexuality, that lust is not just acceptable, but a virtue. But there is no homosexual “desire” that is apart from lust.

    [..]

    Homosexuality allows us to avoid digging deeper, through superficiality and lust-inspired attractions – at least, as long as it remains “accepted” by law. As a result, countless miss out on their truest self, their God-given Christ-self.

    Homosexuality, for me, began at age 13 and ended – once I “cut myself off” from outside influences and intensely focused on inner truth – when I discovered the depths of my God-given self at age 30. [...] In my experience, “coming out” from under the influence of the homosexual mindset was the most liberating, beautiful and astonishing thing I’ve ever experienced in my entire life.

    Lust takes us out of our bodies, “attaching” our psyche onto someone else’s physical form. That’s why homosexual sex – and all other lust-based sex – is never satisfactory: It’s a neurotic process rather than a natural, normal one. Normal is normal – and has been called normal for a reason.

    Abnormal means “that which hurts us, hurts normal.” Homosexuality takes us out of our normal state, of being perfectly united in all things, and divides us, causing us to forever pine for an outside physical object that we can never possess. Homosexual people – like all people – yearn for the mythical true love, which does actually exist. The problem with homosexuality is that true love only comes when we have nothing preventing us from letting it shine forth from within. We cannot fully be ourselves when our minds are trapped in a cycle and group-mentality of sanctioned, protected and celebrated lust.

    Again, I’m not against people doing what they want in the privacy of their own homes, as long as they realize that it’s against God’s Law. It’s this making of laws to normalize it and force it to be acceptable to everyone world-wide that I disagree with.

    I’ll leave you with a quote from one of Stephen Lawhead’s books –

    “To see evil and call it good, mocks God. Worse, it makes goodness meaningless. A word without meaning is an abomination, for when the word passes beyond understanding the very thing the word stands for passes out of the world and cannot be recalled.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. F E Smith (3,273 comments) says:

    Tristanb, having looked at the posts prior to yours at 5.21pm, your first statement seems somewhat gratuitous. I couldn’t see anything that would suggest Christian’s ‘hating’, but that might just be me missing something.

    Anyway, I have previously gone on record at Kiwiblog as supporting the abolition of both Christmas and Easter as public holidays, suggesting simply a right of observance for those who wish to do so. So why not do the same thing with marriage? Just get rid of it completely as a civil matter (after all, is there really a point to getting a marriage license from the State?) and allow those who wish to be married in the form of the religion of their choice to do so without the need for state intervention? The position of the relationship would not change under the Property (Relationships) Act as that applies to both the married and the unmarried. It would also lead to the abolition of divorce as a legal concept, although property division and child issues would still go through the Family Court. All non-religious relationships of whatever gender (or number) could simply live together without the need for a wedding. Win/win all around, surely?

    Just wondering aloud, is all…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    Some commenters here often condemn anal intercourse among homosexuals. Do they ever condemn it between heterosexuals? Do they condemn oral sex (or does the mouth meet their definition of a sexual organ)? I don’t spend time thinking about anal sex. Guess that’s why I’m not hung up about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    Oh dear.

    Hate is the only abomination on this thread
    Why bring God into your prejudices? and stop being so fucking patronizing, ………………………as long as they realize that it’s against God’s Law………we are a secular country , there is no Gods law, fuck off to a Muslim country if you want to live under Gods law.

    I’m not against people doing what they want in the privacy of their own homes

    That one is right up there with … .some of my best friends are black

    This post was about a poll ,all its done is bring out the homo haters and God botherers, which are generally the same crew

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Spiritfree (79 comments) says:

    Fletch: The cold, hard, fact is that gays cannot have sex (coitus). They just can’t – it’s not possible. They can excite each other and come to some kind of climax, but that isn’t sexual intercourse.

    You’re talking bollocks, mate. You can read more about Michael Glatze here: http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2010/03/7770/

    Anyway, you can quote away as much as you like, quote others saying that it’s against God’s law, but that is their interpretation, as is all religion, of “what God has to say” on the matter. I don’t believe that God has anything to say on it. I do know, however, that judging one person or another is not in anyone’s highest good.
    And please don’t tell me that I have no belief in God and so on, as I do. I’m just not religious. There is a difference.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Fletch (5,721 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay – as I said, it doesn’t even take being religious to see that homosexual ‘sex’ is not normal. I’m not against homosexuals per se – I work with two gay guys and they are very good people. I just don’t agree with some of their conduct. It has nothing to do with “hate”. If you were a vegetarian, you’d probably think me callous and immoral for eating meat, but you wouldn’t hate me because of it would you? I can also disagree with someone smoking – doesn’t mean i hate them. Again, same thing.

    Why am I not allowed to disagree with an act that I find immoral? Why must you call it hate? It is nothing of the sort.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    My next question, Shunda, if I may: would you have a problem if you saw two men merely cuddling one another anywhere that a man and a woman can be seen without a problem merely cuddling one another?

    Umm it’s actually my turn to ask you a question.

    My question to you – is it acceptable for two people to engage in sexual intercourse in a public recreational area?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    Fletch – Do you condemn heterosexual anal sex and heterosexual oral sex?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Fletch (5,721 comments) says:

    Spiritfree, as i was saying above, it doesn’t even take being religious to see if something is normal or not. Is smoking “normal”? ie, is the human body especially equipped with organs to do it? Any one can see that it isn’t. Lots of people do it and I disagree with them doing it, but most people wouldn’t call me a “hater” for my disagreement. Why am i a hater if I disagree with homosexual conduct (which shortens the lifespan of a person even more than smoking – smoking shortens life by approx 7 years, married homosexuals live approx 24 years less).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    Fletch, why bring God into it?

    We all have our beliefs, but I don’t prefix mine or try and justify them by using God.

    Your work mates ,do you tell them that the way they live their life is an abomination?
    If not why not?
    Surely your beliefs and opinions are well judged enough that you could talk to them face to face over the smoko table and they would become enlightened

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Fletch (5,721 comments) says:

    Rodders, do I think they are lifegiving acts? No i don’t. But that isn’t the point – the thing that gets to me is the making of something that is dangerous and dysfunctional lawful and teaching kids in school that it’s normal and acceptable. That’s what i disagree with. Then there’s the fact that hollywood pushes the lifestyle in it’s movies, tv, and every other media – a lifestyle that only approx 3% follow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    @Fletch – There is a lot of “knowing” and “begatting” in the Bible. Stopping people having sex is like trying to stop the earth rotating.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. F E Smith (3,273 comments) says:

    Rodders, my understanding is that it is not the form of intercourse that is the issue for adherents of the “Abrahamic” religions (although I have seen some Islamic fatwa that suggests the Muslims don’t approve of sodomy, although apparently that is open to debate) but rather the gender of the participants.

    At least, that is my understanding of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    Thanks for that F.E. Smith. What Fletch seems to be saying that if it is not a “lifegiving act”, then it isn’t ok.
    If the Kama Sutra was to be written that way, it wouldn’t be much of a read ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    Of all the heterosexual chaps I know that proudly proclaim their “brown wings” every single one of them does it as a form of domination of their sexual partner.

    The very act is about domination and defilement of another’s body and dignity – “I just made you my bitch” is a saying based on the act of sodomy.

    It is impossible for an intelligent being to not know what the function of an anus is, no one is really fooling anyone, not even themselves.

    When one turns aside the function of our bodies and uses our intelligence as an agent of depravity, anything goes.

    We use intelligence to override the laws of nature and the laws of morality.

    But truth is never a consensus of opinion, it just isn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    Well I’m blaming the Earl of Birkenhead for making Fletch shut down for the night.

    I will now attempt a lifegiving act or cast my seed upon the ground , it will all depend on the response I get

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Andrei (2,430 comments) says:

    All non-religious relationships of whatever gender (or number) could simply live together without the need for a wedding. Win/win all around, surely?

    No – any society which wishes to survive and prosper needs to procreate and for that to happen men and women need to be bonded together. If they are not at best you end up with fatherless children who as we can see even in our own society often do not prosper.

    So marriage traditionally was taken very seriously and was deemed to be a lifelong commitment not a fair weather relationship as it is today.

    Indeed to this day in my religious tradition, anyway, you sit down with the priest and the duties and responsibilities you are undertaking are thoroughly discussed.

    Scary words duty and responsibilities very scary. Too scary for a hedonistic and self absorbed people to bother with.

    DPF says the world didn’t end with civil unions – well it has been all of five minutes in the scheme of things and in truth the damage wrought by all this social engineering over the past thirty years is starting to show with the fact the population is aging.

    What happens to a decaying culture when it meets a more robust one eh. History tells us – no? How many civilizations have crumbled.

    Anniversary of the Srebrenica Massacre this week and what was the distinctive feature of that? Well it might be the fact that well armed and trained Dutch troops who were supposed to be protecting the civilians fled in the face of adversity. Now this was a unionized army in which “openly gay” soldiers were and are welcomed with open arms. And what happened when the rubber met the road? They wilted.

    This is not the only example in recent times of the flabbiness of Western Culture, I can think of several more right off the top of my head.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Fletch (5,721 comments) says:

    Shunda, exactly – that reminds me of some lyrics by Joni Mitchell –

    If you’re smart or rich or lucky
    Maybe you’ll beat the laws of man
    But the inner laws of spirit
    And the outer laws of nature
    No man can

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    Andrei’s blaming homosexuals for the Srebrenica Massacre. Don’t forget their role in Christ’s crucifixion as well (!)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. F E Smith (3,273 comments) says:

    Oops, Paul, my bad! As for your last comment, well, whatever floats your boat… ;D

    Shunda, you obviously know some very sick heterosexual chaps.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    They wilted…

    Now the homos are the cause of defeat in time of war. They obviously weren’t well armed and trained were they, It was because they were unionized and it was after 5 o’ clock

    Alexander the Great did a bit of fighting and his belief was that women were for breeding but boys for pleasure.

    Fucking astounding

    I sat down with the Priest as well and at the time we were even because neither of us had been married, its not about God so much as treating your partner with love and humanity, the bits you both have don’t matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Spiritfree (79 comments) says:

    Shunda: My question to you – is it acceptable for two people to engage in sexual intercourse in a public recreational area? No.

    But I’d add the proviso – if the area you’re talking about is hidden away and also well-known as somewhere that that happens, then that’d be fine by me. I’ve not been to Rabbit Island, but near to where I live is somewhere which seems to be similar. This one has been a gay beach for many decades and here we’re talking about more than 50 years. Everyone locally knows what it is and in the bush behind it, it happens. So what? Every tourist visiting will see that most on the beach are male and make their own mind up as to whether to stay.

    Consider this – nearby there are many many beaches at the back of which “it” doesn’t happen and on which straights can cuddle and whatever quite freely and without anyone writing in to the local newspaper complaining. So you see, why should it be wrong for gays to “have” just one area like that? All this sounds very much like the part of Rabbit Island you are complaining about, except that there it is merely an extension of one very (very) long beach, whereas the one I’m talking about, it is more secluded and separate. In fact, to my mind it’s the best beach for miles around for its natural beauty alone…gays have got the best deal. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Andrei (2,430 comments) says:

    I didn’t blame homosexuals for the Srebrenica Massacre I said that our culture is self centered, self absorbed and flabby. This worship of sexuality is a symptom of that.

    As is the fact that the Dutch couldn’t face up to the task they were given at Srebrenica

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Spiritfree (79 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay:

    at 10:14pm I will now attempt a lifegiving act or cast my seed upon the ground , it will all depend on the response I get

    at 10:24pm they wilted

    who wilted?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    Spiritfree – ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Spiritfree (79 comments) says:

    Rodders, didn’t you know that the Srebrenica Massacre only happened because of homosexuality? Shame on you! And Lehman Brothers, the bank whose downfall was the final trigger for the Credit Crunch. They were based in….New York! Enough said. oops, hang on a minute, this is a Kiwi politics blog. Well you know that that John Key cuddled up with a gay man at the Big Gay Out in March and guess what, he’s riding high in the polls. If NZ gets a National Party majority in November, it’ll all be the fault of those bloody gays!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    I thought Andrei was married to Ian Wishart!

    What have I been missing here?

    Everyone is this thread!

    So passe. Who gives a fuck if a couple of guys or gals want to get hitched? They’re not asking you!

    Go on Andrei, give Ian a kiss xxxx

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    Shunda, you obviously know some very sick heterosexual chaps.

    Generation X – goes with the territory.

    Generation Y is worse, oh so, so much worse!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. starboard (2,447 comments) says:

    fuck you Pauleastbay..who made you judge and jury?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    So speaks the executioner known as starboard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. starboard (2,447 comments) says:

    yeah mate ..off with thy head poof..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    starboard, if your physical appearance is as pleasant as your manner, your face would pose a continuing threat to the functioning of watches and clocks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Scott Hamilton (235 comments) says:

    With his advocacy of the death penalty for the wrong sort of bedroom activity, starboard might have made a good commandant in one of the camps the Nazis set up to house homosexuals and other ‘degenerates’. Andrei, for his part, seems to think that the end of the practice of prosecuting and jailing gays for what they do in the bedroom signifies a decline in the moral standards of our civilisation. I think most people today would consider us a more civilised society for no longer prosecuting and locking up gays. A search using the keywords ‘indecent assault on a male’ on the Papers Past archive, which holds the back issues of many (but not all – the Herald is excepted, for instance) Kiwi papers from around 1840 til around 1940, brings up 759 results. I think it’s safe, then, to assume that Frank Sargeson was far from alone in being prosecuted for consensual sexual activity in the era before 1985. As somebody mentioned upthread, raids on gay saunas which saw individuals being arrested for consensual sex were a feature of the decade immediately before 1985. So much for the good old days…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Scott Hamilton (235 comments) says:

    Andrei claimed upthread that the police didn’t chase after gays or peer through bedroom windows back in the good old days before the repeal of laws that criminalised homosexuality. I mentioned Frank Sargeson’s arrest and trial as a rejoinder to that claim, and now that I’ve got the book to hand here’s an account of Sargeson’s arrest from the biography written by Michael King:

    ‘Leonard Hollobein was an artist from Christchurch, known to the police as a ‘corrupter of youth’. When he visited Wellington in September 1929 he was recognised by a local detective and placed under police surveillance. Convinced that he had come to the city to solicit sexual partners, detectives occupied a room next to the one Hollobin was renting in a Wellington boarding house. The artist, who was in his late thirties, met Norris [Sargeson] in a public place and invited Sargeson to return with him to his room. Norris agreed. Later in the evening, when the two men were masturbating each other, the detectives forced their way into the room and arrested them both for indecent assault. The charge, laid under section 153 of the Crimes Act 1908, carried a maximum sentence of ‘ten years imprisonment with hard labour’, with the option of being ‘flogged or whipped once, twice or thrice’…’ (pg 93)

    Hollobein got five years with hard labour; Sargeson got a suspended sentence of two years. Was this stuff really evidence of a civilised society with high moral standards? It seems barbarous to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Obviously barbarous behaviour by the two men!

    I’m sure Andrei would get off over the flogging bit!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Scott Hamilton (235 comments) says:

    Yes Luc, that masturbation will get you every time. I’m sure Fletch is calculating right now how many years it takes off your life. Papers Past is addictive – here’s an article from the Evening Post in 1913 that might help Fletch and Andrei in their deliberations on morality:

    ‘CAUSES OF INSANITY

    INTERESTING STATISTICS. One of the most interesting features of the Mental Hospitals report is a table giving the principal assigned causes of insanity. Alcohol figures largely (82 males and 19 females), and syphilis was responsible for 32 ma lea and 4 females. Three cases of sexual excess, all from Auckland, are recorded (one was a female), and there was one case, also from Auckland, of a love affair. Singularly enough, Auckland was also responsible for the only case of insanity from what is vaguely described as “occultism.” Masturbation[!!] was the cause in five cases, all males, four from Christchurch and one from Nelson, and the solitary life claimed six victims — four males and two, females. Sixty males and 65 females succumbed to heredity, and 30 males and 25 females to congenital mental deficiency, and it is a’ significent sign of the times that prolonged mental stress was the cause in the cases of 19 males and’ 30 females.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Courage Wolf (559 comments) says:

    reid (7,869) Says:
    July 16th, 2011 at 5:45 pm

    I’m a Christian…

    Typical, I would not be surprised if you are like Graham Capill – spend your whole life preaching against homosexuality being evil but only to cover up your pedophilia.

    “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen” – Ephesians 4:29.

    reid (7,869) Says:

    Fuck you are dumb.

    Fuck I’m getting really sick of explaining all this. Can’t you guys just get it FFS?

    If that’s not useful idiot territory then what the fuck is?

    Why the fuck would anyone take offence at a fact?

    Fucking d’oh this is my very point.

    I don’t understand how a man can love another man, when what they get exited about is fucking them up the arse. This is why the proponents who disguise their poisonous argument in the guise of human rights, want it. They want to make the act of making a baby, another human being, as dignified as two guys fucking each other up the arse.

    “Whatever goes out of the mouth comes from within, and that’s what makes a person unclean” – Matthew 15:18.

    LOL, what an anally obsessed Christian you are reid. Also, what Church do you attend? I’d be interested to know, as that way I know which Church to avoid given that a Church like that contains a fuck-stain like you in its congregation. How would you feel about your pastor knowing the way you post here on Kiwiblog? Although I wouldn’t be surprised if your pastor was also a Ted Haggard style homosexual who hates gays:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. starboard (2,447 comments) says:

    just keep your disgusting filthy act in the bedroom, thats all I ask.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Spiritfree (79 comments) says:

    Starboard, just keep your disgusting filthy attitudes in your head, that’s all everyone else asks.

    Thanks in advance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Scott Chris (5,677 comments) says:

    One argument put forward to support the notion that homosexuality is ‘unnatural’ is that gay sex is essentially non reproductive, so how can the gene be passed on from one generation to the next? (although, ironically, you seldom hear the evolution theory deniers posing this question). The following link gives Richard Dawkin’s view:

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xd34et_richard-dawkins-explains-origins-of

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. fatboy slim (77 comments) says:

    Homosexuality is just another yucky disease. The ruling socialists hate the mum – dad and kids arrangement. It makes controlling these people even harder because they fear the strong family loyalties and healthy bonds of love that develop. Everything in modern society points to the deliberate destruction of the normal family unit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Matt (221 comments) says:

    It would be simpler to remove the legal recognition of marrage…that way everyone who got married would be recognised as a civil union.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Robert Hagedorn (1 comment) says:

    Sodomy? For a surprise, do a search: First Scandal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. AlphaKiwi (684 comments) says:

    @ Matt

    You’re right. If it’s meant to be a religious institution, and we’re a secular state, then the word marriage doesn’t need to be forced on everyone. Baptism, communion, confirmation and confession are religious institutions, not legal institutions; let’s add marriage to the list as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. starboard (2,447 comments) says:

    Lets just take back NZ society..homos can go back into the closet..there will be no civil unions , marriage shall be between male and female, no same sex parents ( to fuck up childrens minds ) and everything shall be tickety boo. Hard for the likes of you spiritfree to handle but majority rules…if you dont like it go live in Saudi Arabia see how you get on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. redeye (626 comments) says:

    I look forward to my Sunday morning bacon and egg sandwiches while browsing kiwiblog and the like.

    Thanks to all those anally fascinated posters for ruining it this morning. Yuk.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Caleb (465 comments) says:

    as we start to normalize these things what are we really saying.

    in a couple of generations will it be as normal to be married to someone of the same sex?

    will there be quotas and the like, so as not to discriminate?

    will this then lead to things like polygamy being the norm, what else?

    a society needs a set of values and morality, modern liberals are fools.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Courage Wolf (559 comments) says:

    starboard (2,201) Says:
    July 17th, 2011 at 11:10 am

    Lets just take back NZ society..homos can go back into the closet..there will be no civil unions , marriage shall be between male and female, no same sex parents ( to fuck up childrens minds ) and everything shall be tickety boo. Hard for the likes of you spiritfree to handle but majority rules…if you dont like it go live in Saudi Arabia see how you get on.

    How ironic of you to use a religious anti-homosexual country as your example. Thank God people like you are dying out and the direction of society is heading into secularism and anti-discrimination. Of course dumbasses like you like to call it the end times but I’ll leave your delusions about the family murderer and destroyer Himself to you:

    “Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man’s house where her lord was, till it was light. And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold. And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place. And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel” – Judges 19:24-29.

    “A society needs a set of values and morality, modern liberals are fools” – LOL, thank God we no longer murder women for being raped, like many of you Bible-believers would wish God’s moral law still stated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    “A society needs a set of values and morality, modern liberals are fools” – LOL, thank God we no longer murder women for being raped, like many of you Bible-believers would wish God’s moral law still stated.

    Taking scripture out of context yet again I see Courage Wolf.

    Here are some facts about the passage you mentioned.

    The Rapists were Homosexuals, or at the very least Bisexuals, their preferred victim was the Man, and they had surrounded the house to get him and have sex with him.

    The guy pushing his concubine out the door was an act of cowardice, there is no evidence that God condoned this behaviour. The bible often tells it how it is and leaves it to people to use common sense as to whether the actions of an individual were right or wrong in this case it is an historical record of how a dramatic event unfolded.

    The girl was not killed by her master, she was dead at the door which is why she didn’t answer, a latter passage confirms this.

    The guy cut her up and sent her to the 12 regions for much the same reasons as the English did at times during their history, but in this instance it was not to disgrace her, it was to draw attention to the nature of her brutal rape and death.

    This event so enraged the people that it caused civil war to break out, they were so appalled by the rape and torture of this girl that they declared war on the unrepentant tribe that harboured these wicked Bisexual rapists.

    This whole sorry and ugly story ultimately served to remind people why it is important to maintain morals within society.

    Courage Wolf, your argument is completely destroyed when you look at this passage in context, God is not a monster, but people at times most certainly are, that is what it is about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. chiz (1,095 comments) says:

    reid:It’s a factual statement. If being gay is not about sex, what the hell is it about? That is the only repeat only difference between a gay person and a straight person, the way that person has sex. That is a bald, plain, cold, hard fact you can’t argue with.

    The difference between straight and being gay is not about sex its about orientation.

    That is the only repeat only difference between a gay person and a straight person, the way that person has sex. That is a bald, plain, cold, hard fact you can’t argue with.

    This is uncontestably false. Some gay men are celibate or have sex with women. Some straight men have sex with men. Being gay isn’t about who you have sex with its about your orientation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. boredboy (246 comments) says:

    Starboard:

    “Lets just take back NZ society..homos can go back into the closet..there will be no civil unions , marriage shall be between male and female, no same sex parents ( to fuck up childrens minds ) and everything shall be tickety boo. Hard for the likes of you spiritfree to handle but [b]majority rules[/b]…if you dont like it go live in Saudi Arabia see how you get on.”

    Majority rules?

    Topic:

    “In your view, should same sex couples also be allowed to marry?”According to the results, 60% of respondents were in favour and 34% opposed.”

    Perhaps it is you, starboard, who should go and live in Saudia Arabia.

    What an idiot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. chiz (1,095 comments) says:

    Andrei:The Canons of the Church actually say that a marriage cannot be performed if one of the parties cannot have children.

    So post-menopausal women can’t nip off to the registry office with their beau and get married?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. chiz (1,095 comments) says:

    reid:Marriage in peoples minds = children and family. It’s the foundation of the family unit..

    People have all sorts of things when they marry and isn’t always about children.

    It is the name given to the unit that humans use to reproduce

    The name given to this unit is the family.

    Now from a continuation of the species perspective, marriage is therefore critical and even animals practice it instinctively.

    This has to be the stupidest comment I have seen in a long time. Animals get married? Marriage is a legal institution. Animals do not practice it. They may pair-bond or even co-habit in a nest or burrow but that isn’t a legal construction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. James (1,338 comments) says:

    If Christians are are saying Gays having sex is wrong because there’s no chance of reproduction I take it then that these pious types don’t give or receive oral sex….?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. starboard (2,447 comments) says:

    “In your view, should same sex couples also be allowed to marry?”According to the results, 60% of respondents were in favour and 34% opposed”

    yes but all the homosexuals would have been voting in their filthy droves so the figures are meaningless. Try again boredboy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. wat dabney (3,455 comments) says:

    We shouldn’t be discussing Christian family values without a list of what they actually are:

    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/fv/long.html

    Beating and murdering children seems to be rather important. In fact, compared to the couple of column inches in which homosexuals receive a passing reference, this deity goes on and on and on about the importance of beating and murdering children.

    It’s almost as if, oh I don’t know, as if this deity is some sort of asswipe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    starboard contends that the children of same sex couples have “fucked up minds”

    Evidence please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    He’ d just nominate himself and prove his own case – no link required

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. starboard (2,447 comments) says:

    “So says Dale O’Leary, a writer and researcher for the Catholic Medical Association.
    She shared with ZENIT how persons with same-sex attractions are far more likely to suffer from psychological disorders than the general public, and how those risk factors can negatively affect children”

    there ya go wodders..now run along..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. James (1,338 comments) says:

    Starboard needs a blowjob more than any other white-man in history…but can’t get one because that would be wrong….;-0

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. starboard (2,447 comments) says:

    no doubt you would like to provide that service James.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. boredboy (246 comments) says:

    “yes but all the homosexuals would have been voting in their filthy droves so the figures are meaningless. Try again boredboy.”

    Piss weak, starboard. This isn’t some self-selecting website questionnaire, it’s a legitimate poll run by a well-respected company that contracts to government and large corporations.

    You hold a minority view. Get used to it; it’s only going to get worse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/issues/feminism.txt

    Here’s Dale O’leary on feminisim – its like a Monty Python sketch,

    You legend Starboard

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. fatboy slim (77 comments) says:

    How come children in the play ground find being called a gay is the lowest form of verbal abuse?
    Once a upon a time gay meant happy,now it’s an insult. Ask the kids if you bent poofters don’t believe me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. starboard (2,447 comments) says:

    geez didnt realise there were so many fags on this site..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. boredboy (246 comments) says:

    “How come children in the play ground find being called a gay is the lowest form of verbal abuse?
    Once a upon a time gay meant happy,now it’s an insult. Ask the kids if you bent poofters don’t believe me.”

    What an argument. Kiddie-logic. Do your children do your taxes for you as well?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. mikenmild (8,790 comments) says:

    And some, like starboard, are continuing to deny their sexuality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. fatboy slim (77 comments) says:

    starboard – fags everywhere mate. Never mind the average kiwi has had enough of their debauchery and twisted social engineering experiments.

    I just wish they ALL would get jobs at the UN.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    What the Catholic system did to you Starboard is truly astonishing.
    Mind you Sue Bradford is a goose as well

    I just consider myself lucky that
    I picked up football ,squah and cricket and not so much hate from the system

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    starboard – meet “fatboy slim”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. mikenmild (8,790 comments) says:

    Rodders

    I think starboard actually prefers men.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. starboard (2,447 comments) says:

    keep yelling mincers..someone will listen to ya…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    @mike – If “fatboy slim” is a woman, then why did he/she choose a nickname like that?
    Or is he/she (to use his/her words) a “bent poofter”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. Craig Ranapia (1,912 comments) says:

    I love my dog but that doesn’t mean I should be allowed to marry the bitch.

    @Tauhei Notts: If I came around your house and compared your wife/husband/significant other/whatever to any kind of animal, I’d be inclined to allow you to smack me in the teeth so hard I’d need to stick my toothbrush up my arse to clean ‘em.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    What an argument. Kiddie-logic. Do your children do your taxes for you as well?

    Actually, kids are often to the point and more honest than adults, perhaps if adults played: “one of these things does not belong here, one of these things is not the same” a bit more often through their heads, life would start to make a bit more friggin sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    This is not a Christian issue at all, it is a ‘name it and claim it’ attack on a heterosexual institution by the gay community and majority of the heterosexual liberal elite.

    The whole thing would fall over on it’s arse if the heterosexual liberal ‘elite’ weren’t so damned bigoted towards others of a differing world view.

    This issue is primarily about a liberal takeover and domination of all things cultural, they mean to make everyone their cultural ‘bitch’ and have no regard for long standing institutions that have on the whole served our culture well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. boredboy (246 comments) says:

    “Actually, kids are often to the point and more honest than adults, perhaps if adults played: “one of these things does not belong here, one of these things is not the same” a bit more often through their heads, life would start to make a bit more friggin sense.”

    Kids are also very impressionable, inexperienced and fad-driven.

    I am surprised you picked up this one as well seeing as it is such a dead-end argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    Have read from the top … and … simply don’t have the energy to engage in this one. Other than to ask if this push for normalisation and acceptance takes into consideration the welfare of children, who are shown to be statistically safer in the care of a biological mother AND father than in any other relationship structure?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. fatboy slim (77 comments) says:

    What a load of crap boredboy, this is far from a “dead-end argument”.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7289390.stm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. big bruv (12,351 comments) says:

    Showing your usual level of tolerance again D4J?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    @fatboy slim – why do you hate homosexuals so much?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. fatboy slim (77 comments) says:

    Showing your level of stupidity again big bruv. Man, please get some much-needed help dude.

    Rodders, I think the country has far more important issues to address rather than trying to undermine the value of marraige.And by the way, hate is a word I do not use.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    …but you hate them anyway. Why would a woman feel so threatened?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. Tauhei Notts (1,509 comments) says:

    Craig at 6.42.
    The Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witness people would all be more welcome at my home than you would be.
    That being so, my ever polite wife would no doubt extend to you every courtesy.
    But if you were in any way cruel to our beloved female labrador, my seemingly ever so polite wife would spill boiling water all over you.
    I would be expecting idiotic comments from any visitor to my home who writes for that scurrilous rag, The Listener. I would not react with violence. I accept that writing for that rag is the place for the bottom feeders of the journalism school of liars.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. boredboy (246 comments) says:

    fatboy, rom the article you posted:

    “”One reason for this increase in use could be because “gay” has partly lost its sexual connotations among young people, he says. While still pejorative, for the majority of youngsters it has replaced words such as “lame”.

    “I have interviewed scores of school kids about this and they are always emphatic that it has nothing at all to do with hostility to homosexuals,” says Mr Thorne, compiler of the Dictionary of Contemporary Slang. “It is nearly always used in contexts where sexual orientation and sexuality are completely irrelevant.”

    This mutation of the word is one reason why using “gay” as in a pejorative sense often goes unchallenged. Radio 1 DJ Chris Moyles caused controversy in 2006 for his casual use of the word. He said he’d used it to describe something as “rubbish” and was backed by the BBC.””

    So basically, your article confirms what I alluded to, that kids are fad-driven and that the meaning of the word ‘gay’ has lost it’s meaning in terms of its derogatory use against actual gay people.

    what a spectacular own-goal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. big bruv (12,351 comments) says:

    Rodders…I suspect that fatboy/D4J is afraid of what might be in the closet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. fatboy slim (77 comments) says:

    I will leave this thread because the big bruv fag club has infested the site. Yuck.FFS.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. mikenmild (8,790 comments) says:

    bb

    It’s the Graeme Capill effect. Lots of loud campaigners against the ‘gay lifestyle’ turn out to be quite keen on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. boredboy (246 comments) says:

    Krazykiwi

    “Have read from the top … and … simply don’t have the energy to engage in this one. Other than to ask if this push for normalisation and acceptance takes into consideration the welfare of children, who are shown to be statistically safer in the care of a biological mother AND father than in any other relationship structure?”

    While it is true to say that children are shown to be statistically safer in the care of a biological mother and father than in any other relationship structure, there is too little evidence as yet to compare single-sex parents. Anecdotal and evidence so far indicates that the children of single-sex parents experience similar life outcomes to those of mixed-sex parents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. big bruv (12,351 comments) says:

    fatboy

    Before you go can you let me know what your opinion is on fathers and their access to their kids in any marital dispute?

    Oh…and also, do you think that fathers who are denied access (usually for very good reasons) should still pay child maintenance?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    I smelt a rat and did a plagiarism search using the wording of fatboy’s comment:
    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/07/same_sex_marriage.html#comment-853112
    and my search picked up the 5th entry on this thread:
    http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2007/10/the-church-alwa.html

    Spooky, eh ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. F E Smith (3,273 comments) says:

    James, re your 5.12pm comment: AFAIK all three ‘Abrahamic’ religions have trouble with intimate homosexual relations because of the gender of the participants. The other point that I don’t think has been made here is that all three of those religions consider extra-marital sexual relations with any gender to be forbidden to some extent. Islam is, I think, especially tough on this point.

    However, if a person’s religion forbids fornication and only allows marriage to be between a man and a woman then that person’s opposition to homosexual marriage would seem to make sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    @boredboy – there is evidence that as fewer biological parents are involved in the care of children, the statistical likelihood of harm increases. I’ll take your anecdotal, and raise you evidential.

    oh, evening D4J. Spoken to DPF yet?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    Kids are also very impressionable, inexperienced and fad-driven.

    Oh, so that is why there is such a push to get this stuff into schools.

    impressionable, inexperienced and fad-driven.

    Well that describes at least two thirds of the adult population of NZ, you sure you meant kids?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. fatboy slim (77 comments) says:

    My husband thinks its bloody hilarious that you oddballs think I am a fathers rights activist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. mikenmild (8,790 comments) says:

    Rodders

    Definitely spooky. Unless… they’re the same person.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    @fatboy @8.19pm – “my husband”

    So you are saying same sex marriage is legal already? :D
    Is your real name the (f) Peta? ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Nookin (2,887 comments) says:

    And the Sherlock Holmes award for further uncovering a poser goes to………………….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. big bruv (12,351 comments) says:

    Come on Fatboy…nobody is falling for the “I am not D4J” line.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. starboard (2,447 comments) says:

    ya not sayin fatboy is D4J?..no way..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. fatboy slim (77 comments) says:

    Man you guys should get yourself a good gal instead of sticking pins into a d4j doll.
    FFS this is soooooooooooooooooooooooo creepy and weird.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. Nookin (2,887 comments) says:

    Hey, Dad. Grizz Wylie would have more show of dressing up as Hayley Westernra and getting away with it than you have of hiding the quintessential d4j

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. big bruv (12,351 comments) says:

    Why would it be weird and creepy if you are not D4J?

    If you are who you say you are you would not be bothered by it, however, the same lunatic writing style, the same boring and repetitive knuckle dragging crap about “poofs” and the like would suggest that you are exactly who we suspect you are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. fatboy slim (77 comments) says:

    I give up on you guys.d4j must have really hurt you all.
    Goodnight.I got better things to do than put up with this utter crap.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. Craig Ranapia (1,912 comments) says:

    Tauhei Notts:

    The feeling is entirely mutual. The Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons of my acquaintance are capable of opening their mouths without being vulgar, impertinent trash.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    g’nite “fatboy” *hugs*
    (Give my best wishes to your hubby too)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. boredboy (246 comments) says:

    “@boredboy – there is evidence that as fewer biological parents are involved in the care of children, the statistical likelihood of harm increases. I’ll take your anecdotal, and raise you evidential.”

    As I said there is too little evidence right now to conclude that, generally speaking, children brought up by same-sex couples are any worse off than opposite-sex couples. Anecdotally they tend to do far better than alot of other catagories.

    SB:

    “Oh, so that is why there is such a push to get this stuff into schools.”

    If you knew anything about homosexuality, you would know it isn’t about pushing it into schools. I didn’t need a teacher to tell me I am gay, I’ve known since the very beginning.

    Conversly, people like you wouldn’t have stopped me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. Gulag1917 (425 comments) says:

    Re the above poll the majority have been wrong before,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. starboard (2,447 comments) says:

    disgusting habit..I know a good doctor you can see boredboy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    @boredboy – and there is anecdotal evidence that anecdotal evidence is completely useless.

    You can flannel on all you like about what evidence is missing, but it doesn’t change the facts. The fact is a biological mother and biological father represent the statistically safest family environment for kids to be raised in.

    You might not like that, it might not fit your world view, but until there is unbiased, scientifically based, peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary, that fact stands.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. Nostradamus (2,767 comments) says:

    D4J:

    Give it up – you’re not fooling anyone and, frankly, pretending to be a woman is bizarre – even by your standards.

    Anyway, it’s disrespectful to DPF to openly flout his ban. By the way, you never got back to me about this disgusting comment you made about DPF on another blog. Do you still agree with those sentiments?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. boredboy (246 comments) says:

    OK then krzy kiwi, lets ban all single-parent households. If your partner leaves you, your child becomes a ward of the state until such a time as you have attracted another suitable partner.

    Such is your logic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. boredboy (246 comments) says:

    At any rate… we are not even talking about that.

    The thread is about the fact the MAJORITY OF NEW ZEALANDERS SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE.

    If there was a referendum on it today, we would win and you would lose. That poll wasn’t a close-run thing.

    Get used to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    @boredboy – How you do deduce that from my comments? Where did I speak of banning anyone or anything? Noting what science has found to be best, ideal and optimum doesn’t infer banning things that are less than ideal. But like most people I want the very safest, best environment for NZ kids to grow up in. Don’t you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    starboard @ 9:34pm says “disgusting habit..I know a good doctor”

    Your psychiatrist, presumably ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    @boredboy – “we would win and you would lose”. Is winning so important that you’ll happily create losers?

    I’m genuinely interested you know what – other than the title of ‘married’ – is to be gained by legalising gay marriage? Why is it so important? Is this move building something new, or is it simply designed to tear down the once-Christian institution of marriage?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. reid (15,531 comments) says:

    is it simply designed to tear down the once-Christian institution of marriage?

    Yes that is the very point kk. Marriage isn’t a Christian institution BTW, it’s a human one. Spans everything: geography, history, religions – everything.

    Kinda important but maybe not as important as Lady Gaga’s next stopover in some airport, somewhere. Just another headline.

    The thing that’s weally important, is making the victims all cuddly, so they are all warm inside cause that was where the hurt was coming fwom. Awwwwwwwwww.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. marquess (2 comments) says:

    @krazykiwi: There are very real issues regarding international law that civil unions simply cannot get around.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. boredboy (246 comments) says:

    You are already a loser. You are on the side that opposes gay marriage. According to this latest poll (one of a string that increasingly supports gay marriage) you are in the minority.

    I am sick of arguing about this. I have better things to do with my life than argue with the likes of you. I am better than you and to be frank I don’t care if you think otherwise. Same for starboard et al.

    However, I do it because I am uncomfortable with the current arrangement of relationship recognition which can only be described as apartheid.

    Apartheid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. boredboy (246 comments) says:

    So I will retire for the evening. I have to get up tomorrow to sell things and make twice as much as you do for half the effort.

    To yourself, starboard, and everyone else of your ilk: enjoy the stomach ulcers, I’m sure they’re worth it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    However, I do it because I am uncomfortable with the current arrangement of relationship recognition which can only be described as apartheid.

    Apartheid.

    Utter friggin rubbish, with that comment you make a mockery of the legitimate struggle against tyranny and all those that have suffered under true apartheid.

    Homosexuals have all the same relationship ‘rights’ as I do, but now they want the heterosexual tradition redefined on a friggin whim.

    And why? because liberal sociopath’s the world over have given the opportunity through feigned human rights concerns and moral ‘oughts’.

    The true moral of the story is this: ‘give a homosexual whatever he wants or forever be damned as a bigot, hater, homophobe’

    I say screw that, I would defend homosexual rights to dignity and freedom from judgement, but I will not abide this “I wants it so I should haves it” crap.

    Marriage is a heterosexual institution, it is valuable to our society as it is, it is not a fashion accessory or a lifestyle quirk.

    Just because others have torn down the walls doesn’t mean others have the right to walk through, it has nothing to do with rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. boredboy (246 comments) says:

    Die in a fire SB, I’m going to bed.

    Enjoy those ulcers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. starboard (2,447 comments) says:

    “Die in a fire SB, I’m going to bed.”

    nasty little fag arent you boredboy. Well I hope you get colon cancer and your arse rots from the inside. Be off with you to menfriends and indulge in your filthy little perverted acts of sodomy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. James (1,338 comments) says:

    The bigots are dying out and Gays will have their day of liberation…its just a matter of time.The bigots will pass away and there being no God or afterlife will fade from existence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. starboard (2,447 comments) says:

    The gays are dying out and the people will have their day of liberation…its just a matter of time.The gays will pass away and there being no God or afterlife will fade from existence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    @boredboy – I was trying, unsuccessfully it would seem, to engage you in debate. Responding with “You are already a loser… you are in the minority…. I have better things to do with my life… I am better than you” just makes you look really, really silly.

    I did ask “I’m genuinely interested you know what – other than the title of ‘married’ – is to be gained by legalising gay marriage? Why is it so important?”. You call civil unions apartheid (although I’m guessing that you supported the legislative change?!?). Why are they apartheid? Help me out here.

    PS I have a friend who was badly burnt in a fire. You could pop up to a burns ward somewhere, and then decide if this is something you’d wish on anyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. moaningmoa (66 comments) says:

    Wow… and listen to the bile flow. I came looking expecting a good flamefest, and you all did not dissapoint.

    Here’s my view ….. “Live and let live”, and what people do with other people, provided they are of age to consent, is none of my business.

    If they want a civil union, defacto, marry; then good on them… and this is coming from a happily married white heterosexual male.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  257. Courage Wolf (559 comments) says:

    krazykiwi (7,072) Says:
    July 18th, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    I did ask “I’m genuinely interested you know what – other than the title of ‘married’ – is to be gained by legalising gay marriage? Why is it so important?”. You call civil unions apartheid (although I’m guessing that you supported the legislative change?!?). Why are they apartheid? Help me out here.

    If a straight couple can choose whether to have their legal status as either married or civilly unionised, then why can’t a gay couple also choose? In fact, if marriage has any religious or traditional connotations – shouldn’t it be no place of the government to be involved? In which case, the legal status should default as civil union for both straight and gay couples – and any other word that religious fundamentalists would like to call themselves they can add in their own informal settings.

    The problem with “Civil Unions” instead of “Marriage” is that the State is what matters and the definition of Marriage as far as the State is concerned and has always been a secular term used in a legal context to denote certain rights and privileges to those that are recognized as married by the State.

    The term “Marriage” as far as the State is concerned is no different from something along the lines of a “Lease” or any other form of contract as the State doesn’t function in with terms defined from sociocultural perspective, but rather functions with terms defined in the legal perspective.

    What those in the Civil Union camp fail to realize is that the struggle isn’t fundamentally about redefining or defining a sociocultural term such as “Marriage” as that’s up to each individual to make that assessment and define for themselves if they wish, but it’s to define, redefine, or acknowledge marriage from a legal perspective overseen by the State to be recognized to include individuals of the same sex in an entirely secular legal definition of marriage outside of whatever religious/social/cultural significance you wish to place on the term marriage (As that sort of thing doesn’t concern the state).

    If a large segment of society wanted to sign a “lease” in a temple and conduct an elaborate ceremony during the process, you wouldn’t feel obligated to create a separate legal term that would function in the same manner as a “lease” when the majority that participated in the signing of “leases” found a segment of society they viewed objectionable to the sacrament of “leasing”.

    Civil Unions are only helpful to the equality movement simply as a vehicle for marriage rights in states that have already banned the recognition of gay-marriage or defined it as solely between a man and a woman either through law or by constitutional amendment. Outside of the practicality or possibility of getting that barrier overturned depending on the State a Civil Union is a convenient loop-hole in legal sense that can bring equality expediently for those who it wouldn’t be otherwise be possible.

    At the end of the day gay marriage or civil unions is about freedom of contract. So long as there are two consenting parties, they should be conferred the exact same rights if they wish to enter into the contract. What the contract is called should not be up to the religious to decide – if you signed a lease agreement, why should religious people be able to stop you from calling it a lease agreement, and want you to call it a property lending agreement when it confers the exact same meaning as a lease agreement?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. Mick Mac (1,091 comments) says:

    sorry moaningmoa homosexuals aren’t the norm figuratively speaking because they go against design.
    So it’s not hardware but software, which means it is choice.
    now whether this is inflicted or impinged or free choice and imprinting that is up for debate.

    “Live and let live”. what a coward you are.
    Gender does matter, women are different from men and a kid needs both as 1st prize, as does society.

    If you are for homosexuality then say so, your limp wristed approach is for homosexuals in practice.
    So you are you a liar too?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    @Courage Wolf – So to summarize, then, they’re different:

    …as the State is concerned and has always been a secular term used in a legal context to denote certain rights and privileges to those that are recognized as married by the State.

    But how are they different? What are the certain rights and privileges afforded a married man and woman, that are denied a couple who have contracted together in civil union?

    Because if there are real differences, then the question is not about the suitability of the term ‘marriage’, but more the entitlement to those rights and privileges.

    As an aside, you and others (eg MNIJ) should try to get past displaying your intolerance of Christians as a means of attacking those who hold different views on a topic. It’s quite possible that I object to gay marriage for reasons other than religious dogma, as reading my comments above should confirm.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  260. Courage Wolf (559 comments) says:

    It’s quite possible that I object to gay marriage for reasons other than religious dogma, as reading my comments above should confirm.

    I strongly suspect that those who are opposed to homosexuals claiming the term marriage for their civil unions were also the ones who opposed civil unions in the first place. And those who opposed civil unions were likewise the ones who opposed homosexuality being made legal in the 80s. And those who are opposed to homosexuality are only opposed to homosexuality because they are religious. If not for the fact that they are religious, homosexuality would be very low on the list of concerns facing the world today. Only Christians and other religious people are as vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage as any other rational human being who does not believe in fairy-tales cannot see the harm in two consenting parties wanting to enter into a relationship together.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. chiz (1,095 comments) says:

    keazykiwi:The fact is a biological mother and biological father represent the statistically safest family environment for kids to be raised in.

    Yes there are a number of studies comparing kids raised by two parents to kids raised by single parents and finding that the former seem to do better. But its not clear what those studies mean, and researchers in this field have disgreed on this. A family with two parents has more money to spend on kids than a single parent. More subtly, parents who stay together rather than split up may have better genes and may have passed those genes on to their children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  262. chiz (1,095 comments) says:

    Mick mac:sorry moaningmoa homosexuals aren’t the norm figuratively speaking because they go against design.
    So it’s not hardware but software, which means it is choice.

    There is no design involved. The evidence is quite clear that there is a significant biological component to sexual orientation. There is no evidence for choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  263. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    There is no evidence for choice

    What nonsense. I know a bunch of lesbians. Nice women, several would rate as very good friends. EVERY ONE of them has previously been married or in long term relationships with men. Men who have screwed around or whatever and these gals have decided – their words – to give up on men. It was their choice. We all have choice.

    I’m yet to have someone explain to me what rights and privileges are accorded to a married couple that are denied to a civil union couple.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  264. mikenmild (8,790 comments) says:

    ‘what rights and privileges are accorded to a married couple that are denied to a civil union couple.’

    You would have no problem with same-sex marriage then.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  265. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    @krazykiwi @ 6:59pm – do your friends appreciate being patronised?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  266. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    *sigh* No one wants to provide a considered answer. Oh well …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  267. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    krazykiwi – thanks for your condescension.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  268. starboard (2,447 comments) says:

    rodders and milkymike..are you two joined at the ass?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  269. James (1,338 comments) says:

    Trouble is starboard….there are more Gays alive now than at any other time in history…those heterosexuals keep popping them out.Meanwhile religious belief is fading as younger people shun the hate of their forebears and actually practice what churches preach about love thy neighbour and so forth.

    You are a dinosaur buddy…happy extinction. ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  270. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    Evening starboard, overdose on the garlic at teatime again?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  271. starboard (2,447 comments) says:

    ahh James..the mincer who wants to give me a BJ..you fags are a dying breed ( literally ) go and eat some prunes son…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  272. starboard (2,447 comments) says:

    evening wod…still eating lemons I see..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  273. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    How’s the halitosis ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  274. starboard (2,447 comments) says:

    fine thanks..the garlic seems to have it sorted..hows the leaking prostate?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  275. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    Haven’t had a problem yet. I’ll call you when I need advice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  276. starboard (2,447 comments) says:

    call James..he seems to be up with the play on all things manly..probably check it for free ” look , no hands “

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  277. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    re “hate of their forebears”, there’s some truth in that statement. I say that as what you guys would call a fundamentalist Christian. Method aside, it’s just possible that the natural order of what’s best/safest for us correlates with some of the beliefs promoted by various religions. So rejecting suggested optimums should really have more substance than simply rejectcting everything espoused by a faith or belief system. That seems to be the MO of hedonistic liberalism.

    So… I’m still looking for a considered answer to my question…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  278. mikenmild (8,790 comments) says:

    kk asked: ‘But how are they different? What are the certain rights and privileges afforded a married man and woman, that are denied a couple who have contracted together in civil union?’

    There is no difference. a civil union has the same legal effect as a marriage. so the term ‘civil union’ should logically be replaced by the term ‘marriage’.

    Better still, no state recognition of marriage or civil unions. Why should the government have to authorise my partnership?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  279. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    @mikenmild – Why indeed! I’d posit that partnerships models that have been proven to create the optimum environmenmt for raising children should be afforded special treatment under law. The rest should be able to exist without state authorisation as you put it.

    So for me the problem isn’t that we have yet to authorise gay marriage, more that we don’t promote/endorse/encourage/reward partnership models where a biological mother and biological father take responsibility for nurturing and raising the next generation. Or worse, that we acceed to the calls for normalisation of sub-optimal family structure in the mistaken belief that that’s ‘fair’ on the adults involved.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.