Deborah Russell on same sex marriage

October 21st, 2011 at 12:24 pm by David Farrar

writes in Stuff:

The state has no business in the marriage game. It does have a legitimate interest in noting who is in a committed relationship. As a society, we want to be able to tell which people happen to be sharing accommodation as mere flatmates, and which have amalgamated their interests for the foreseeable future. …

It is unfair the state gives a certain status (marriage) to some households but not others. Either the recognition ought to apply to all, or none. Anything else represents the state picking and choosing among citizens, saying some are more worthy than others. That ought to be anathema in an egalitarian society.

Churches should not be allowed to perform state marriage ceremonies. They are welcome to perform their own ceremonies, but there is no reason for the state to endorse them. If the Head Prefect of the Assembly of Elf Worshippers wants to conduct wedding ceremonies on midsummer night’s eve, then she should go ahead. It just oughtn’t to count for the purposes of the state.

People who want to register their relationship with the state as well as in the eyes of their church or coven or humanist society should do that. They should make a trip to the Registry Office to record their relationship for the purposes of the state, and then independently do whatever they like that constitutes solemnising a marriage in their own religion.

As for marriage for lesbian and gay and other non-traditional couples, or trios, or whatever, what is available for one New Zealander must be available for another. If the Government wants to stay in the marriage game, then it should make its version of marriage available to everyone – straight, gay, lesbian, transgender, two or three or more, whatever. That’s only fair.

I broadly agree with Deborah that the state should merely register relationships, and it should be up to individual couples if they wish to have that relationship called a marriage by the particular religion they follow.

Tags: ,

174 Responses to “Deborah Russell on same sex marriage”

  1. minto57 (197 comments) says:

    Yawnnn

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Andrei (2,664 comments) says:

    There is no such thing as same sex marriage – marriage is about raising children always was and always will be.

    I know that people who have reached late middle age without having procreated can kid themselves otherwise and try and distort the language and pretend marriage is some quaint ceremony involving multi-tiered cakes adorned with two dolls and photographs taken in picturesque settings but it isn’t – it is a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman undertaken for the purpose of continuing the human race in an orderly and humane manner.

    If two men want to fuck each other that is their own business but it does not need marriage to do this. Marriage makes no difference to this relationship, none whatsoever!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Andrei (1,063) Says:
    October 21st, 2011 at 12:44 pm

    There is no such thing as same sex marriage – marriage is about raising children always was and always will be.

    I know that people who have reached late middle age without having procreated can kid themselves otherwise and try and distort the language and pretend marriage is some quaint ceremony involving multi-tiered cakes adorned with two dolls and photographs taken in picturesque settings but it isn’t – it is a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman undertaken for the purpose of continuing the human race in an orderly and humane manner.

    If two men want to fuck each other that is their own business but it does not need marriage to do this. Marriage makes no difference to this relationship, none whatsoever!

    If one man and one woman want to “fuck each other” for “the purpose of continuing the human race in an orderly and humane manner” that is their own business but it does not need marriage to do this. Marriage makes no difference to this relationship, none whatsoever!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. PaulL (5,987 comments) says:

    Andrei, you’re fulling missing the point.

    The proposition here is that marriage be removed from the law entirely.

    There will be a “register my relationship” function provided by the government, in which the government formally records that two people have chosen to depend on each other, become each other’s next of kin, and share financial resources.

    There will also be a variety of religious or other ceremonies that are free to call themselves whatever they want (obviously a bunch of churches would offer one called “marriage” under the rules of their church). The government would have no interest in these, and would not regulate them.

    This has nothing to do with who has sex with whomever else. It has to do with the mechanisms by which two people who have made a life long commitment can give legal effect to that commitment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    The Chomskyan Revolution is alive and well.
    Two can play this game.
    This discussion is so gay…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    And cue the homo haters, ta dah

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Andrei (2,664 comments) says:

    No courage wolf – see the reason why the Church and society as a whole have a stake in marriage is because when one man and one woman who are married conceive a child they have undertaken to be responsible for the raising of that child.

    If however a child is conceived without that undertaking and commitment that child so conceived will in all likelihood become the responsibility of the STATE and this is very common now as the numbers on the DPB demonstrate only too well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Andrei – I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Let us turn to the Bible:

    Ezekiel 4:9 “Take wheat and barley, beans and lentils, millet and spelt; put them in a storage jar and use them to make bread for yourself. You are to eat it during the 390 days you lie on your side. 10 Weigh out twenty shekels of food to eat each day and eat it at set times. 11 Also measure out a sixth of a hin of water and drink it at set times. 12 Eat the food as you would a loaf of barley bread; bake it in the sight of the people, using human excrement for fuel.” 13 The LORD said, “In this way the people of Israel will eat defiled food among the nations where I will drive them.”

    14 Then I said, “Not so, Sovereign LORD! I have never defiled myself. From my youth until now I have never eaten anything found dead or torn by wild animals. No impure meat has ever entered my mouth.”

    15 “Very well,” he said, “I will let you bake your bread over cow dung instead of human excrement.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. reid (16,491 comments) says:

    As for marriage for lesbian and gay and other non-traditional couples, or trios, or whatever, what is available for one New Zealander must be available for another. If the Government wants to stay in the marriage game, then it should make its version of marriage available to everyone – straight, gay, lesbian, transgender, two or three or more, whatever. That’s only fair.

    Not sure what her and others who think like her, problem is. Gays etc already have everything except the label. The label however they covet for they know about labels, being steeped in feminist leftist propaganda as they all are. For this is what this is. The final frontier toward slicing the elephant. The last mouthful whereby the sacred institution of human procreation that has been exclusively about that since the days we all lived in caves and grunted, finally but finally becomes tainted by becoming not about human procreation anymore but rather, about mere animal lust. Sex. Plain and simple. It’s not about family and children and all that this represents since said beginnings in caves. This institution has arisen and persisted in every single culture and civilisation in history and curiously enough, in today’s societies across the world, one observes this institution is strongest in those societies where the poisonous feminist propaganda has been the least successful in penetrating. Isn’t that curious?

    But this is what they are at heart, about. Despite gays having exactly the same rights in every way from “the state,” people like this wretched female still promote their poisonous propaganda amongst the braying masses, that gays etc aren’t actually equal at all, and this is just so terrible in every way because we’re being discwiminated against. My question to her and every single useful idiot who thinks corrupting the institution that transcends every religion and all of history, is a good thing, is: why and how?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. tvb (4,430 comments) says:

    Same sex relationships ALSO raise children and much else. But the state also has a role in dissolution, arrangements over property care for children and the provision of a Court to deal with these issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. kowtow (8,512 comments) says:

    Funny how the equality brigade insist the state butt out when it suits but demands that that state grant all the demands they make for rights based on equality and fairness.

    What role has the state then when Abdullah turns up with his 4 wives and demands his “marriage” be recognised in good old equality loving,multicultural Aotearoa?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Great idea! I have suggested this before on KB, in one of the other debates on this topic.

    No need for vows, or other stuff like that. Just sign a bit of paper (as so many put it) and you are in a ‘registered relationship’. It also means we could get rid of divorce, as well. Just enable the couple to ‘de-register’ their relationship, no need for a 2 year separation or such other idiocies. Nice and straightforward.

    If a religious couple want a marriage ceremony then you can have it in a church, or whatever other religion’s place of worship that you might choose, but it would mean and end to all of the mindless debate on gay marriage and related issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Elaycee (4,393 comments) says:

    @Pauleastbay

    Also cue the bible brigade… and there goes the neighbourhood. :(

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Lucia Maria (2,449 comments) says:

    States that introduce “same-sex marriage” will self-destruct in the long term.

    This is because if the definition of marriage is changed from a life-long, sacrificial commitment between a man and a woman whose love creates children, and thus a mini-society, to a romantic partnership, then the strength of those mini-societies will fail over time. We can see it happening now – no fault divorce created the first major rupture and redefinition of marriage. Soon after, it became socially acceptable for children to be born to single-mothers. The only end will be an implosion of the State itself. The centre will not hold.

    Introducing “same-sex marriage” is societal suicide and those who say the State has no business in the marriage game are Satan’s useful idiots.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Kowtow,

    no reason whatsoever not to allow multiple ‘relationship registrations’. The idea of a person being in a relationship with just one other person is too restrictive. If Abdullah wants to be in a registered relationship with four other women, why not? So long as they consent, all is well

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Andrei (2,664 comments) says:

    F E Smith

    And when Abdullah with his four wives and sixteen children looses his job you will be happy to support the happy family of 21 people via WINZ

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. reid (16,491 comments) says:

    Also cue the bible brigade… and there goes the neighbourhood.

    Elaycee while many Christian people interpret this to be a biblical issue, I think personally it’s a political one.

    I think it should therefore be discussed along political dimensions.

    Part of politics is of course human psychology and how people think about any given thing determines ultimately how they will behave towards it. This is what the heart of the issue is, and this is the battleground where the poisonous feminists operate. They have attacked marriage on a number of fronts over the years, this is but their final assault on the last bastion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Lucia Maria (2,449 comments) says:

    I think it should therefore be discussed along political dimensions.

    Indeed, Reid.

    And the political dimension includes increased State intrusion in an attempt to make same-sex marriage equivalent to traditional marriage. Those who push for “fairness” are also pushing for a State that is ready to pounce on anyone who doesn’t toe the line and in the short term, creates a more powerful State. Totalitarianism 101.

    An old post of mine: Same-sex Marriage creates a more powerful State

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Scott Chris (6,149 comments) says:

    Farrar says:- “the state should merely register relationships, and it should be up to individual couples if they wish to have that relationship called a marriage by the particular religion they follow.”

    By crikey, I agree!! A secular government defines the *legal substance* of the social contract, not the *aesthetic*.

    Still, that social contract does infringe on the right of individuals to be treated as an individual entity. Why should your tax status change simply because you choose to pair bond?

    In theory, the only time your marital status is truly the business of the government is when you seek financial assistance from society and therefore cede some freedom to society’s arbitrator.

    The amount of freedom sacrificed, if one assumes that financial assistance is not a “right”, is essentially *dictated* solely by the government acting on behalf of the will of the majority of its citizens. The individual asking for the assistance can take it or leave it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Andrei (2,664 comments) says:

    Also cue the bible brigade… and there goes the neighbourhood.

    Actually the only biblical reference comes from Courage Wolf who for reasons known only to his tiny mind quotes a passage referring to conditions in Jerusalem during the siege of the city in 587 BC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. gump (1,650 comments) says:

    I’ve never understood why Christian fundamentalists are so obsessed with gays.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    Where do I begin.

    Two points.

    1. To suggest the Catholic Church or the Church of England (as the vast majority of Christian worshippers in NZ and the West) is akin to “Assembly of Elf Worshippers” shows how out-of-touch Deborah Russell is with the cultural and philosophical currents of the West. No ones denies a decline in church attendance and Christian belief (two different things) but to suggest the Christianity is irreverent is frankly, ignorant.

    2. To an extent I agree that the Church shouldn’t dictate the lives of non-believers (the Catholic Church is philosophically quite strong on this – different from the likes of Destiny who are a religious minority though seem to get more airtime) but the converse – if you demand such a strict separation – is that those that live their lives by Christian principles shouldn’t be taxed to pay for the negative externalities of those choose divorce, sexual promiscuity, and homosexual lifestyles – which have a high financial and social cost.

    People like Deborah Russell are as always bellicose (and self-righteous) about the rights of certain people but never demand their responsibility and always ask others to pay for their poor decisions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Mick Mac (1,091 comments) says:

    Just because Homosexuals want equality doesn’t mean they are going to get it.
    You can change all the laws you want but at the end of the day most people think you are queer.

    FE has a point (about state sanctioned relationships) but at the end of the day this isn’t about equality but destruction of marriage and God.
    If marriage was just a bit of paper as FE implies why doesn’t everyone do it?

    because it is not just a bit of paper.
    It is a covenant between a man and a woman and God and the sign of the covenant is sex.
    That’s why they don’t want to just sign it.
    As a jurist FE should know this.

    Now a so called state marriage is the same, but the God is replaced by the state.
    More importantly if two men or two women can sign up for it why stop there.
    Once you move away from a man and a woman then all bets are off.

    And here we move into whats best for the kids area.
    stability and a mom and dad who loves them and each other is what is best practice for kids, regardless of practitioners not living up to it.
    All the studies show this is best, none of you can argue that and you know it.

    So why should we accept anything less than best for our society and especially for our kids?
    Queer is less than 1% therefore it is not normal and definitely not equal.

    Even worse it is socially and health wise substandard for individuals and society than hetero/marriage.
    Do we as a society want to both give tacit approval let alone encourage something that is not healthy to our kids and substandard?
    No queer is queer and never will be the same as normal marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. reid (16,491 comments) says:

    An old post of mine: Same-sex Marriage creates a more powerful State

    You know it’s interesting Lucia, Andrei and others who also see what I see, that people like DPF, in other ways so astute, doesn’t also see this quite obvious dynamic.

    The power of decades and decades and decades of propaganda, exacts an interesting toll, doesn’t it.

    I’ve never understood why Christian fundamentalists are so obsessed with gays.

    Really? It’s cos the Bible has various passages specifically condemning the behaviour, gump, but who cares about that, since that is not the topic of this thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    @ gump – it’s not a obsession with gays, it’s an obession with a functioning society in 50 years.

    @ Andrei – While I don’t disagree with you, your arguments here don’t get traction with many people here and I wonder if you’d be more successful changing your angle.

    @ Christians in general – arguing from religious point of view does get you much success. I wonder if it’s better to ask from a free choice point. It would certainly stop the atheists mocking our argument – especially as many of them are poorly read in the basics of philosophy and religion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Ed Snack (1,883 comments) says:

    Sure, make it that there is a state recognized relationshipfor legal purposes, and marriage kept as a religious ceremony. Most of the campaign for “gay marriage” is a political campaign aimed less at some notional “equality”, and mainly intended to destroy marriage as an institution. Once you reduce marriage to mere verbiage you undermine the on dot of family and the responsibilities involved.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Mick Mac (1,091 comments) says:

    Gump
    your answer says it all about you sadly.
    fundamentalists is a perjorative term in your use.
    The simple answer to your question is – it is the issue put forward by the gays and their supporters that’s why.

    Christians care deeply about society and the way it is moving, Homosexuality is but one barometer.
    but the one that can be used as a stick by the haters against Christians and other people of faith.

    The increased corruption, domestic violence, cheating (in all strata of society) wanton wickedness on TV (and it’s lessening of standards), the lack of respect for the law and organs of state by behaviour of the judiciary and parliament and civil service. the increased lawlessness and rebellion. the attacks on all our children by the secular devotees through academia and teaching and the media.
    society is like a frog in a pot in many ways.
    Christians aren’t kill joys but they cannot stay silent as the temp on the pot is turned up or turned around.
    On the last day you will understand but then it will be too late for so many of you and sadly your children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    Another point about Deborah Russell’s comments is this: she argues that people should be free to ‘register’ how they want and she seems hostile to religion? Why then the obsession with the word ‘marriage’ if you don’t like religion?

    I suspect the answer is that the push is about normalising gay behaviour rather than about the wishes of two people wanting to formalise their commitment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. RRM (9,932 comments) says:

    @ gump – it’s not a obsession with gays, it’s an obession with a functioning society in 50 years.

    LOL what?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. RRM (9,932 comments) says:

    I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words… When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise [disrespectful] and impatient of restraint”

    -Hesiod, 8th century BC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. rouppe (971 comments) says:

    No David.

    You are falling into that simpleton’s trap again. A marriage and a wedding ceremony are two discreet, unrelated, disparate events.

    Marriage is the civil process of registering on the Births, Deaths and Marriages Register.

    A wedding is a ceremony that might be religious, could be Catholic, Jewish, Muslim or something else. It might also be agnostic, such as the on-the-beach type weddings.

    They DO NOT have to happen at the same time. Religion has no part in the act of getting married. It is simply by convenience that a religious wedding ceremony is combined with a marriage (i.e. signing the register).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    And on a tangent, I find the use of the phrase ‘commitment’ a bit of a joke. If you belief divorce is OK, then what does that say about your ‘commitment’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Paul Williams (878 comments) says:

    East Wellington Superhero said:

    To suggest the Catholic Church or the Church of England (as the vast majority of Christian worshippers in NZ and the West) is akin to “Assembly of Elf Worshippers” shows how out-of-touch Deborah Russell is with the cultural and philosophical currents of the West.

    Which she didn’t. Strawman much?

    is that those that live their lives by Christian principles shouldn’t be taxed to pay for the negative externalities of those choose divorce, sexual promiscuity, and homosexual lifestyles – which have a high financial and social cost.

    Evidence or I call bullshit.

    I’d not be using the word bellicose if I were you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Scott Chris (6,149 comments) says:

    RRM says:- “Hesiod, 8th century BC”

    Haha

    reid

    Jesus superseded the old testament which had become anachronistic. He promoted tolerance and love and charity and forgiveness and humbleness. (What a freakin hippy liberal lefty ffs!!!)

    He hung out with prostitutes and money lenders and lepers and foreigners and rich dudes and poor dudes.

    He never condemned homosexuality.

    I suspect the bits where he promoted the acceptance of gays have been edited out, or were never recorded by the bigoted scribes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Concentrate (29 comments) says:

    Damn Gay conspiracy, it’s not all dutch rudders and tribadism, it’s attacking the family unit and the very foundation of society!

    I want to get on the random Bible quote train here we go.

    Kings 2:23-24

    And he [Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up that way, there came forth little children of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; Go up, thou bald head.
    And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood and tare forty and two children of them.

    I think justice via Bear seem a proportionate response to being called bald.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Fletch (6,407 comments) says:

    So what Russell is basically saying is that anyone who wants to shack up together, be it two or three people, a person and a dog, or whatever (and next it will be adults and children), should be given the ‘blessing’ of the state and their cohabitation seen as a ‘marriage’. Just because it’s “not fair” otherwise. Her ignorance is astounding.

    Marriage, first and foremost, is a Sacrament (at least in the Catholic Church). As such it should actually be the other way around – it’s first importance is religious – the union of man and wife before God and gathered friends and relatives – and the State is secondary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Aredhel777 (290 comments) says:

    Oh goody. Yet another thread on homosexuality which will inevitably devolve into a war of words between Christians and militant atheists, complete with obscure and irrelevant references to the Old Testament. And you say Christians are obsessed with with gays.

    Which, by the way, we’re not. In the fifteen years I have been attending an evangelical church, I can probably count the number of times homosexuality has come up on one hand. It’s the gay activists that care about homosexuality, and the evangelical church is a useful object of their ire. Of course, there is a whole section of the church which is ~liberal~ and ~progressive~ (codewords for culturally conformed) and those are the Christians who are obsessed with homosexuality. Take a look at the sermons from liberal church St their website.) Literally every single week they Matthews in the City (they are available on bring up how much homosexuals are being oppressed etc etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. reid (16,491 comments) says:

    Scott, for fucks sake, I explained above this is a political not a religious issue. So pray argue along those lines if you care to address a comment to me, on this thread. Read what I said above, and tell me where what I said, is not true, in a political sense.

    Unless you too are a useful idiot or a poisonous feminist for anyone who thinks Deborah has a point is in one of those two categories and if you don’t agree you are one of those and you do think Deborah has a point then pray tell why and I shall be happy to explain why you must in fact be, one of those two things.

    Sorry to be disrespectful but I have explained where I come from on this above, quite clearly.

    Oh goody. Yet another thread on homosexuality

    No, it’s not, A777. The only people who are making it religious, are you idiots who are pretending it is. I suggest you all stop right now and start making some sense, politically, on this issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    @ RRM

    Yes, very clever, you’re not the first person to roll out that quote as if to suggest we’re all wowsers. My point was that a society that does not believe in commitment to one another (of which marriage has been perhaps the highest example of) and the genuine interest in selflessly raising the next generation is going to fail. We’re already there. The massive depression and suicide rates, abortion rates, violent and sexual crime rates are a consequence of how disconnected we’ve become with what sex is, and how it integrates into our lives. Sure, the chattering classes and young (and old) opinion makers can sleep around and pretend it’s all normal but there is dark side to all this that we ignore.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Aredhel777 (290 comments) says:

    Oh fuck. I tried to edit my post and it became incomprehensible. Some kind of computer error. The second paragraph from my post is supposed to read:

    Which, by the way, we’re not. In the fifteen years I have been attending an evangelical church, I can probably count the number of times homosexuality has come up on one hand. It’s the gay activists that care about homosexuality, and the evangelical church is a useful object of their ire. Of course, there is a whole section of the church which is ~liberal~ and ~progressive~ (codewords for culturally conformed) and those are the Christians who are obsessed with homosexuality. Take a look at the sermons from liberal church St Matthews in the City (they are available on their website.) Literally every single week they bring up how much homosexuals are being oppressed etc etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Scott Chris (6,149 comments) says:

    reid

    I did read the post. I was critiquing this sentence:

    “It’s cos the Bible has various passages specifically condemning the behaviour”

    The point I was making was that Jesus superseded the Old Testament.

    Couldn’t be clearer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Deborah (156 comments) says:

    Many thanks, DPF. I thought this would be something you would agree with.

    [DPF: If we agree too often, I'll reveal how I first met you :-)]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Aredhel777 (290 comments) says:

    “No, it’s not, A777. The only people who are making it religious, are you idiots who are pretending it is. I suggest you all stop right now and start making some sense, politically, on this issue.”

    Oh come on, the OP is riddled with references to religion, don’t deny it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. reid (16,491 comments) says:

    Yes but so what Scott and A777, religion is not relevant to the political issue poisonous feminists like Deborah are attempting to promote.

    What about that, don’t you guys understand?

    I have explained precisely why above. Just search on my name from the top, and read.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Paul Williams (878 comments) says:

    So what Russell is basically saying is that anyone who wants to shack up together, be it two or three people, a person and a dog, or whatever (and next it will be adults and children), should be given the ‘blessing’ of the state and their cohabitation seen as a ‘marriage’.

    No.

    She probably didn’t feel the need to spell out that all other conditions unrelated to sexuality should still apply, possibly becuase no one’s arguing about them.

    This thread’s getting more and more absurd. You know you’ve got a crap position when you start using utterly ridiculous examples.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Aredhel777 (290 comments) says:

    That is precisely what I said Reid. The church cares far less about homosexuality than gay activists and militant feminists would like to make out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Mick Mac (1,091 comments) says:

    Scott Chris (2,299) Says:
    October 21st, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    scott yet again you lie.
    more importantly you deliberately lie too.

    What did Jesus say about someone who caused one of these little ones who love me to stumble?

    what did Jesus say about a man who looks at a woman with lust in his eye?

    neither were loving nor tolerant.

    you use words and shapechange them to suit yourself.
    today what you wrote and intended will be part of your judgement when you kneel before Jesus on the last day.

    What did he say about liars and the kingdom of heaven Scott?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. reid (16,491 comments) says:

    Oh, that’s good A777. Let’s talk about the politics of it then.

    Why precisely do you think poisonous feminists like Deborah are attempting to destroy the institution of marriage and apparently, literally millions of useful idiots here and around the world, all support her in this execrable goal?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Mick Mac (1,091 comments) says:

    East Wellington Superhero (429) Says:
    October 21st, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    In one.
    nice and clear and concise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Mick Mac (1,091 comments) says:

    easy Reid

    Becasue deep in their hearts they hate God and they (by extension) hate us for reminding them about HIM.

    got any harder ones :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. reid (16,491 comments) says:

    What would be good is if Deborah herself seeing she’s here, could answer my question above:

    How come you want the label, when you already have everything else, from a legal perspective? Why oh why, is the label itself, so very necessary to you, when you already have everything else?.

    Precisely how and why, is not having the label, discrimination against gays, in any way?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Scott Chris (6,149 comments) says:

    Well reid, here’s how I see it, also reposted from above:

    “A secular government defines the *legal substance* of the social contract, not the *aesthetic*.”

    What moral right does the government have to define or make exclusive an aesthetic quality?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria (759) Says:
    October 21st, 2011 at 1:29 pm

    States that introduce “same-sex marriage” will self-destruct in the long term.

    This is because if the definition of marriage is changed from a life-long, sacrificial commitment between a man and a woman whose love creates children, and thus a mini-society, to a romantic partnership, then the strength of those mini-societies will fail over time. We can see it happening now – no fault divorce created the first major rupture and redefinition of marriage. Soon after, it became socially acceptable for children to be born to single-mothers. The only end will be an implosion of the State itself. The centre will not hold.

    Introducing “same-sex marriage” is societal suicide and those who say the State has no business in the marriage game are Satan’s useful idiots.

    Well according to the Bible, this is what happens to women like you Lucia:

    Ezekiel 23:19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. 21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.

    Aredhel777 (98) Says:
    October 21st, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    Which, by the way, we’re not. In the fifteen years I have been attending an evangelical church, I can probably count the number of times homosexuality has come up on one hand.

    How would your evangelical pastor of 15 years feel about you saying:

    Aredhel777 (98) Says:
    October 21st, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    Oh fuck.

    Regarding ‘militant’ atheists:

    http://i.imgur.com/oVXez.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Scott Chris (6,149 comments) says:

    Mick Mac

    So are you saying that Jesus didn’t say love your neighbour or enemy as you would yourself? And to forgive? And to turn the other cheek.

    Isn’t this your moral code Mick?

    How did he redefine the Ten Commandments? Do you know that much?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Aredhel777 (290 comments) says:

    “Why precisely do you think poisonous feminists like Deborah are attempting to destroy the institution of marriage and useful idiots support her in this execrable goal?”

    Easy. Go read your Marx. This drive to eradicate every distinction between men and women means that both men and women enter the workforce. This accompanies the destruction of the nuclear family. Marx believed the nuclear family was the ~tool of imperialism~ to hand down Christian values to new generations. Thus we see a drive in Britain to exclude people who disapprove of homosexuality from adoption, which will eventually extend further and further to other viewpoints the state says we are not allowed to hold. The Marxists’ plan is to remove children from the influence of religious parents entirely. This hasn’t happened to the extent that they want yet, but we can see it with the influence of the Clark government where she forced women into the workforce with her anti-family policies, which meant that my generation grew up in state care. The public education system then secularises our children and dictates their values in place of parents. At the same time we also see increasing pressure on private schools, which provide alternatives to the state system. Essentially it is a battle over the future of government, New Zealanders’ beliefs in 30 years, and the rise of authoritarianism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Mick Mac (1,091 comments) says:

    SCott
    again you deflect and don’t undo your lies.
    do you think He will forgive you, your deliberate lies to confuse and deflect people from what he said?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. reid (16,491 comments) says:

    What moral right does the government have to define or make exclusive an aesthetic quality?

    Scott what the hell are you talking about?

    This is about the institution of marriage. Newsflash. Social institutions exist in the hearts and minds of people, not in a legal framework. The legal framework is intended to reflect the current state of a society’s heart and mind of any particular social institution at any given time, not the other way round.

    Poisonous feminists and their millions of useful idiot braying masses, want to change this and make it the other way round. They want to change the legal framework so that over time, marriage as we have known it since the days we all lived in caves and grunted, will become in people’s minds no longer exclusively about reproduction of the species but rather about mere animal lust. Sex. Sex corrupts and cheapens what marriage is all about and this is exactly what they want. This is because marriage is inexorably representative in peoples minds, of the human family. The central institution of life which transcends all cultures and all religions and all of human history. This why this debate is not about religion at all.

    The reason the poisonous feminists want to do this and have accordingly deceived millions of braying masses over the years into thinking it’s about human rights, is because they know, to attack marriage is to attack the central family unit, since it is one and the same thing. This is why “progressive” people talk these days, about “blended families.” Same reason, different line of attack.

    The reason poisonous feminists wish to attack the family unit is because it is humanity’s central support structure and if people don’t have a central support structure, why to whom will they turn in times of need? That’s right. The state.

    This is the Brave New World poisonous feminists and the braying millions of useful idiots attempt to lead us toward, all the while crying in unbroken unison: “but it’s about the humanity, evewyone. It’s about human wights!”

    And the world gradually turns their way.

    A777, it was a somewhat rhetorical question, but thanks for the additional…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. RRM (9,932 comments) says:

    Easy. Go read your Marx. This drive to eradicate every distinction between men and women means that both men and women enter the workforce. This accompanies the destruction of the nuclear family. Marx believed the nuclear family was the ~tool of imperialism~ to hand down Christian values to new generations.

    MEGA LULZ :-)

    MY fiancee and I both work. NOT as some kind of Marxist political statement, but because… we like the lifestyle that we can afford on two incomes a lot more than the lifestyle we would be able to afford one one. We like being able to provide books and music and travel for our little one to help her grow her mind, for example…

    Hilarious how the xtians always think it’s some sort of organised malign plot to suppress their beliefs and values. Or a plot to create some sort of feminist communist state.
    I suppose a certain level of conceit is inevitable after a lifetime of being told that you’re one of the special ones who God’s going to hand-pick for everlasting life?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Aredhel777 (290 comments) says:

    “MY fiancee and I both work. NOT as some kind of Marxist political statement, but because… we like the lifestyle that we can afford on two incomes a lot more than the lifestyle we would be able to afford one one. We like being able to provide books and music and travel for our little one to help her grow her mind, for example…”

    I never said that every couple that went out to work did it as a Marxist political statement. I simply said that Marxists want to encourage this by whatever means necessary (for example, through tax law.)

    “Hilarious how the xtians always think it’s some sort of organised malign plot to suppress their beliefs and values. [...] I suppose a certain level of conceit is inevitable after a lifetime of being told that you’re one of the special ones who God’s going to hand-pick for everlasting life?”

    You foolish man. The tactics I just explained are explicitly spelled out in Marx’s work, especially The Communist Manifesto. Do I actually need to quote it at you? And yes, I am going to heaven, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with my post.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Scott Chris (6,149 comments) says:

    reid says:- “Social institutions exist in the hearts and minds of people, not in a legal framework.”

    Great! We’re all in agreement then. Marriage is not a government institution. It is a multifaceted cultural tradition.

    Therefore, when you chose to get married, you did so in a Christian ceremony, which was then ratified by the government for tax purposes.

    So get the government the hell out of the marriage business, and allow people the freedom of choice to have what ever ceremony is appropriate.

    You, no doubt, would chose the Traditional Christian Heterosexual flavour.

    >>”The reason the poisonous feminists want to do this”

    Well there’s nothing I can do to change your mind on this one, other than to say it is complete poppycock.

    I suspect you too would be up in arms, and even a little iconoclastic if you had only recently woken up to the fact that you’d always been exploited by a patriarchal system.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. MyNameIsJack (2,415 comments) says:

    Scott Chris (2,303) Says:

    October 21st, 2011 at 2:23 pm
    reid

    I did read the post. I was critiquing this sentence:

    “It’s cos the Bible has various passages specifically condemning the behaviour”

    The point I was making was that Jesus superseded the Old Testament.

    Couldn’t be clearer.

    I suggest you re-read your bible before making such dumbarsed claims.

    How about we statrt with matthew 5:17-20?

    17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. RRM (9,932 comments) says:

    This is why “progressive” people talk these days, about “blended families.” Same reason, different line of attack.

    “Blended families” are about people improving their lot in life and climbing up out of bad circumstances.

    The father of my fiance’s daughter had a “nervous breakdown” a few months after the child was born, and he ran away to Auckland to shack up with the first down-on-her-luck woman that would have him. Good riddance IMO, but my fiance had to raise her child alone for 4 years, before she met me.

    Now, OUR little girl has TWO steady full-time parents who love her and provide for her. And she lives in a much better house. And she has a little brother or sister on the way.

    All of this is my way of saying that when you make sweeping generalisations about “blended families,” you’re being an utter utter fuckwit!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Andrei (2,664 comments) says:

    I suspect you too would be up in arms, and even a little iconoclastic if you had only recently woken up to the fact that you’d always been exploited by a patriarchal system.

    No – patriarchal system is feminist poppy cock. See to sire a child and run is easy, so to protect women and her children’s interests it is beneficial to have the FATHER of those children hang around and help her raise them. Thus Marriage which forms the bond between them, creates a social structure whereby both parents, one being male, one being female have a stake in the raising of the children produced by their union.

    And children raised in an environment where both their parents have a role in their upbringing tend do better in life, as has been shown time and time again.

    You cannot get around the fact that every child ever born has exactly one father and one mother or that non traditional families mean that one or both parents of the children within it have in some way been excluded from being part of the picture.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. reid (16,491 comments) says:

    NOT as some kind of Marxist political statement, but because… we like the lifestyle that we can afford on two incomes a lot more than the lifestyle we would be able to afford one one.

    Ever occur to you RRM, to ask yourself how come society has been designed this way, whereby two incomes are required, simply to maintain, not even to get ahead?

    Suggest if not, you do some research into who started it and why. Hint: start with Freud’s nephew.

    All of this is my way of saying that when you make sweeping generalisations about “blended families,” you’re being an utter utter fuckwit!

    RRM anyone who thinks this is about the human wights of a “blended family” is a braying useful idiot or a poisonous feminist. I’ll just assume you’re a braying useful idiot. See mate, it’s about what marriage aka the family represents as a human institution in 2011. This is what it’s about and the destruction of it is what is at stake here. Compared to that, the human wights of a tiny minority of “blended families” doesn’t even enter the equation in any major way whatsoever. Only a braying useful idiot who doesn’t understand and cannot or refuses to look at the wider picture, thinks it does.

    MNIJ do us all a favour and pray desist from dissembling on this thread, it’s too important for that tactic, today. Thanks mate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Weihana (4,546 comments) says:

    The problem with these religious nutjobs is that they believe in the myth of the ideal parents. One dad and one stay at home mum, and a nice suburban home with picket fences.

    The reality is that there is no such thing as ideal parents. There are parents that don’t believe in evolution. You think they’re ideal? Nope they’re idiots and chances are they’ll influence their children to be idiots. There are parents who believe markets are evil and that Cuba is a socialist paradise. Think they’re ideal? Nope they’re idiots and chances are they’ll influence their children to be idiots.

    These religious kooks basically have it around the wrong way. The state shouldn’t look at what makes an ideal parent because there is no hope of agreement and personally I would say religion disqualifies one as an ideal parent. What the state, and society, should look at is what makes a bad parent. Beating your kids makes you bad. Gambling and taking drugs and not feeding your kids makes you a bad parent.

    Being a homo on the other hand does not make you a bad parent and therefore they should be regarded as equal as idiotic religious parents and parents who don’t believe in evolution and parents who believe Cuba is a socialist paradise. So in this regard homos should be able to marry and they should be able to adopt. Are they ideal parents? You make up your own mind, but they are certainly acceptable parents just as much as the religious and conservative whackjobs that populate this thread. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. reid (16,491 comments) says:

    Weihana, for the millionth time, this has NOTHING to do with religion.

    Why the fuck you can’t see that drop dead obvious FACT is beyond me.

    I mean, are you just thick?

    Sigh. Marriage transcends religion, it transcends national boundaries, it transcends history, since it is, in fact, the family unit we are discussing.

    Now why the fact mental fuckheads like you insist on portraying that this institution, the family unit, on which every human on earth has a concept of, is a religious concept, is fucking beyond me.

    Don’t you understand anything?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Weihana (4,546 comments) says:

    reid,

    No it doesn’t have anything to do with religion. It just so happens that most socially conservative loony tunes are also religious loony tunes. You must be the exception. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Andrei (2,664 comments) says:

    There are parents that don’t believe in evolution. You think they’re ideal? Nope they’re idiots and chances are they’ll influence their children to be idiots.

    Very good, you believe in evolution clearly so

    Being a homo on the other hand does not make you a bad parent and therefore they should be regarded as equal as idiotic religious parents and parents who don’t believe in evolution

    So how does a “homo” become a parent Weihana?

    Evolutionary theory and observation tells us that for a mammalian male to become a parent he has to have sexual intercourse with a mammalian female of the same species.

    Thus for your “homo” he has to have some sort of sexual relationship with a woman and if he hasn’t bonded with that woman either he and his partner will raise the resulting child or she and her partner will meaning one or other of that poor little tykes parents is not part of that child’s daily life – and that my unwise friend is not good parenting

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Scott Chris (6,149 comments) says:

    Jackinabox pops up and says: “I suggest you re-read your bible before making such dumbarsed claims.”

    Sorry pal, but you’re just gonna have to start looking for *the truth* at some stage if you want to find any sort of balance.

    Hint: Take Jack out of the equation when analyzing history.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Lucia Maria (2,449 comments) says:

    Scott,

    Yet, MNIJ has neatly skewered your idea that Jesus superceded the Old Testament.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Weihana (4,546 comments) says:

    Andrei,

    Thus for your “homo” he has to have some sort of sexual relationship with a woman and if he hasn’t bonded with that woman either he and his partner will raise the resulting child or she and her partner will meaning one or other of that poor little tykes parents is not part of that child’s daily life – and that my unwise friend is not good parenting.

    So if a father goes off to war and gets killed, thus leaving his wife to raise his child alone, he is therefore a bad parent?

    Oh wait.. I know.. that doesn’t matter because the war widow can marry another MAN and that’s okay in your view despite not being the child’s biological parent.

    Lets be honest. Your delusional religion tells you that homos are evil and are going to hell and that’s all there is to it. It doesn’t matter how many children grow up perfectly fine by being raised by homosexual parents because you, in your pious arrogance, simply “know” that they are bad parents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    She probably didn’t feel the need to spell out that all other conditions unrelated to sexuality should still apply, possibly becuase no one’s arguing about them.

    Possibly, but we should be.  Why shouldn’t we have a debate not just about the genders of those who participate in state registered relationships, but also the numbers and formats?  If three, four or five people want to register a relationship with each other, why shouldn’t they?     If we took this debate past the issue of sexuality then we could have a real look at how the idea of the registration of relationships with the state could be.  After all, the idea of registration with the state is really about economics and property, isn’t it?  I don’t think there is any real statement by the state that marriage as an institution is in any way better than two people living together.  If there is no difference between to people living together in a committed relationship, married or not, then who are we to decide how many people should be in that relationship? 

    And why should we require a two year wait for the relationship to be dissolved?  If one person wants to leave, why not allow it to take place immediately?  After all, the Courts can sort out any property and child issues if the former participants cannot decide for themselves, and that doesn’t need a two year time period.  And while we are at it, we should also abolish Christmas and Easter, which is something else I have advocated on KB.  Allow those who are religious to have their major festivals and make it illegal for their employers to stop them, but why force the whole country to participate in a festival that most people don’t believe in?

    EDIT: 

    Marriage transcends religion, it transcends national boundaries, it transcends history, since it is, in fact, the family unit we are discussing.

    I agree with what reid says there.  This is not a religious issue, although both the Christians and the Christian-baiters/haters are trying to make it so.  

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Andrei (2,664 comments) says:

    So if a father goes off to war and gets killed, thus leaving his wife to raise his child alone, he is therefore a bad parent?

    That is an unfortunate circumstance but then again how many of New Zealand’s children currently not living with their dad are doing so because he was killed in a war? Or dead through any circumstance for that matter?

    Lets be honest. Your delusional religion tells you that homos are evil and are going to hell and that’s all there is to it.

    Wrong – our faith teaches that all people struggle with sin without exception and that sin is part of the human condition which we all have to overcome.

    The Church telling someone who struggles with sexual sin that it is a mistake and bad for their long term welfare is no different than the Government telling someone that smoking has long term health consequences.

    And in both cases you can take what is being said on board or not as you choose and the consequences will be what they will be.

    One difference though – the Church doesn’t raise revenue with its teaching on sin whereas Governments raise revenue by exorbitant taxes on those behaviours it disapproves

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. reid (16,491 comments) says:

    Lets be honest.

    Yes’ Weihana, let’s be just that.

    Now honestly, in your opinion, given the differences in the minds and ways of men and women, how is a child to have the best possible chance of turning out as a well balanced, kind, well educated, self-disciplined and loving individual? What is the best possible formula for success, in that?

    Is it today’s formula, whereby many single-parent families abound and many social issues reflecting the precise opposite traits I just mentioned, also apparently abound?

    Clearly not.

    So in which sector is their most success, re: that, today? Why, it’s stable loving long term relationships between a man and a woman, isn’t it.

    So this would suggest that regardless of what religion says about it, it would make scientific sense, for society to do everything it possibly could to have as many of those sorts of families as possible, wouldn’t it. But society doesn’t do that today, does it.

    Instead what society and all the academics and all the media focus upon, is the dysfunctional areas, which produce the most problems. And they pretend these dysfunctional areas are the way they are simply because there is some kind of invisible oppression going on. They can never quite put their finger on who or what exactly is doing all this oppressing, but it happens all the time, as is evidenced by the evidently poor results, which just keep getting worse, for some reason.

    This to me, is like society thinking that the way to get rich, is by studying poor people to death and trying to first learn about then imitate every aspect of their wretched, miserable lives. I’m not quite sure this is the way to success and happiness, myself.

    But the central question I asked in my first post this morning, remains un-addressed by Deborah herself and all who agree with her.

    Tell us why, gays need the label. Why? How is it discwimination, when they have every other legal right, in every way. Why do they need the label? Why?

    They won’t answer this question, for it reveals the evil heart of the blackened rotting fetid putrid mess. I just wish there weren’t quite so many millions of braying useful idiots. You’d think at least one of them would attempt to answer that question, but no.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @Reid

    “Tell us why, gays need the label. Why? How is it discwimination, when they have every other legal right, in every way. Why do they need the label? Why?”

    I have some ideas but can’t quite get to the bottom (the end game) of it.
    Why do they in your opinion?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Grant Michael McKenna (1,160 comments) says:

    Deborah Russell, the accountant and tax policy wonkette? Apparently they aren’t all little grey men after all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    @ Weihana and other gay ‘equality’ people.

    I dare you to answer this question.

    Do you think the govt should legalise polygamy? If three people consent to a three-way marriage should it be approved? Should this three-way married trio be allowed to adopt children?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. RRM (9,932 comments) says:

    See mate, it’s about what marriage aka the family represents as a human institution in 2011. This is what it’s about and the destruction of it is what is at stake here.

    Alright then, what does it “represent as a human institution”, and what is “at stake here”? In your own words, any time you’re ready.

    Compared to that, the human wights of a tiny minority of “blended families” doesn’t even enter the equation in any major way whatsoever.

    Reference for that “tiny minority” statistic? And what about the rights of the tiny minority of citizens who are Jews?

    Only a braying useful idiot who doesn’t understand and cannot or refuses to look at the wider picture, thinks it does.

    You’re a charitable lot, you christians / family-values people…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    It’s strange with the diversity of human relationships throughout history, we would pick the aberrant nuclear family as the norm to judge others by.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. RRM (9,932 comments) says:

    Do you think the govt should legalise polygamy? If three people consent to a three-way marriage should it be approved? Should this three-way married trio be allowed to adopt children?

    If Government approval is required for some forms of marriage, it should be required for all sorts.

    I put the following to all of the opponents of Gay marriage rights:

    Would you be prepared to offer homosexual couples a tax rebate, on the basis that if they enjoy less legal rights and freedoms than other NZ citizens, they should not be asked to pay the same tax rates as citizens who DO get to enjoy those rights and freedoms?

    if not, why not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    RRM,

    I wonder whether your postulation is actually correct. Surely gay couples are in the same position as heterosexual unmarried couples, from a tax/succession/privileges point of view?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @RRM

    “Would you be prepared to offer homosexual couples a tax rebate, on the basis that if they enjoy less legal rights and freedoms than other NZ citizens…”

    What legal rights do they not enjoy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. reid (16,491 comments) says:

    Why do they in your opinion?

    Because labels are everything in propaganda. Labels corrupt thinking by association.

    It only takes a generation to significantly change social thinking on any given issue. You see this all the time. Look at how the world’s thinking has changed on security in just half of a generation since 9/11, for example and in another ten years, after a full generation, everyone will be used to being monitored, tracked and scrutinised and electronically surveilled with virtually no limitations. Look at the biometric technology they are deploying today. You do a bit of research on this project.

    Anyway that’s just an example of what can change and the social perception of the family unit is just like this. The fact it’s eon’s old doesn’t make it less susceptible to manipulation. Look at how divorce attitudes have attacked the family unit since the sixties, when feminists were just getting started, for example.

    By homogenizing the institutional concept of the family unit (a.k.a. “marriage”) in peoples minds, one devalues it, in those minds. A lifelong relationship becomes quite irrelevant to many in the population, over time. After all, marriage isn’t important anymore since it’s not about families, it’s about sex.

    Sure, back in the olden days it used to be about raising kids and stuff like that, but we passed beyond that ages ago, and now it’s a hate crime to pretend that that’s all marriage should be about, cause it just hurts people to think like that.

    So that’s the future the poisonous feminists are aiming for and it’s the same future the millions of useful idiots are equally, in their profound ignorance, braying for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. RRM (9,932 comments) says:

    Sure, back in the olden days it used to be about raising kids and stuff like that, but we passed beyond that ages ago, and now it’s a hate crime to pretend that that’s all marriage should be about, cause it just hurts people to think like that.

    So that’s the future the poisonous feminists are aiming for and it’s the same future the millions of useful idiots are equally, in their profound ignorance, braying for.

    Are you SURE you aren’t projecting, just a little? ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Marriage long predates the Church….indeed the Church had no interest in it for hundreds of years until it saw it could be used to enrich itself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. RRM (9,932 comments) says:

    F.E. Smith / Other_Andy:

    People all over this thread are constructing elaborate arguments about why the state should not recognise polyamorous relationships, why gay couples should not be allowed to adopt, etc.

    Maybe I should have said:
    Would you be prepared to offer homosexual couples a tax rebate, in exchange for repealing whatever act of NZ law it is that enables civil unions?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Scott Chris (6,149 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria

    Why don’t Christians sacrifice animals to atone for their sins?

    Why aren’t Christians required to keep a kosher diet (unless they want to do so out of free choice)?

    Why aren’t Christians required to build a central temple in which to perform carefully prescribed rituals in a land specially chosen for them?

    And why do Christians ignore God’s word regarding keeping the sabbath?

    And as for Matthew 5.17

    >>”Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

    “Fulfill” also translates as “replace” or “supersede”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism

    Kinda changes the meaning eh? Might have even been grounds for accusations of blasphemy which might lead to him being set up as a rebel by the pharisees, because they themselves couldn’t put him to death.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    indeed the Church had no interest in it for hundreds of years until it saw it could be used to enrich itself.

     Really?  Interesting.  Evidence, please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    People all over this thread are constructing elaborate arguments about why the state should not recognise polyamorous relationships, why gay couples should not be allowed to adopt, etc.

    As is their right.  And your point is?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    Interesting the radio silence on my polygamy question. Should polygamy trios be allowed to marry and adopt children? I bet the gay equality people don’t give a serious answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @Reid

    Thanks.
    I alluded to that in my post at 1:03 pm (Too great a leap for Paul).
    By appropriating the word you can change the meaning. It can then be shaped into whatever you want it to mean or you can turn it into something meaningless or without value.
    My question is, why would they want to do this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. RRM (9,932 comments) says:

    As is their right. And your point is?

    Of course it’s their right.

    It’s my right to say the state should not recognise a marriage between a Maori and a Pakeha, but I that doesn’t mean I do!

    Anyway my 4:59 post is edited, hopefully now makes more sense…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Andrei (2,664 comments) says:

    Mr F E Smith as you full well know registration of Births Deaths and Marriages was always the province of the Church throughout Europe – I assume you have European heritage despite your Pol Potish attitude to European Culture and heritage which is Christian after all.

    The Government took over this task when it started conferring benefits upon people and need to keep track of just who was who and centralize it rather than have it kept in Parish registers.

    I actually think this Gay Marriage thing is an attempt to rewrite both history and humanity as did Pol Pot and just like Pol Pot it is evil and destructive of people.

    It serves no purpose, no purpose at all except to poke our culture and heritage in the eye and to degrade and debase it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Scott Chris (6,149 comments) says:

    East Wellington Superhero says:- “Do you think the govt should legalise polygamy?”

    There is nothing morally wrong with consensual polygamy as far as I can see.

    It is essentially marital capitalism.

    So yes, I think women should be able to marry as many men as they like and vice versa.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Weihana (4,546 comments) says:

    # East Wellington Superhero (433) Says:
    October 21st, 2011 at 4:33 pm

    @ Weihana and other gay ‘equality’ people.

    I dare you to answer this question.

    Do you think the govt should legalise polygamy? If three people consent to a three-way marriage should it be approved? Should this three-way married trio be allowed to adopt children?

    You “dare” me? I’m a crazy liberal. This isn’t daring. Of course they should be allowed to “marry” and yes they should be able to adopt children if they satisfy objective criteria to establish that they are decent people capable of raising children properly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    RRM says:

    F.E. Smith / Other_Andy:

    “People all over this thread are constructing elaborate arguments about why the state should not recognise polyamorous relationships, why gay couples should not be allowed to adopt, etc.”

    Constructing eleborate arguments….?

    You made the statement and I aked a very simple question.
    Do you acknowledge that homosexual couples enjoy the same legal rights and freedoms as other NZ citizens or don’t you.
    Simple question.
    Simple answer…
    Yes they do.
    No they don’t, they do not enjoy the following legal rights and freedoms than other NZ citizens…….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Weihana (4,546 comments) says:

    East Wellington Superhero (433) Says:
    October 21st, 2011 at 5:03 pm

    “Interesting the radio silence on my polygamy question.”

    I’ve been doing things other than reading Kiwiblog such as chasing this bird around my room for the last twenty minutes before it started to take a crap over all of my computer equipment! Fortunately I managed to swat it out the window eventually and now I’m back to reading this… that is until I start having some drinks in preparation for tonight’s match.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. reid (16,491 comments) says:

    My question is, why would they want to do this?

    The family unit is the mechanism to which individuals turn in times of need. In the US for example there are a great many adults and lots of young families as well, all living with their parents, because of the economy.

    In 100 years or so in an imaginary place where families have changed to become a loose construction of individuals who move in and out of any child’s life, there is no real “family” to which one could turn, in similar circumstances. The state must provide.

    Yes, this is communism. Yes, it is not compatible with human nature. No, it won’t work, not in a million years. Yet this is their objective and the sheeple not understanding, meekly proceed to their own slaughter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Weihana (4,546 comments) says:

    Other_Andy (601) Says:
    October 21st, 2011 at 5:11 pm

    The only rights where they’re lacking, that I’m aware of, is the right to adopt. That’s important. But the label of marriage is important too in that it is government sanctioned discrimination. Even if gays had the right to adopt I would object to the state having one label for hetero couples and one label for gay couples. It’s like having one label for white couples and one label for interracial couples and another label for black couples. It doesn’t matter if they’re all equal, the different labeling implies a value judgment that I don’t agree the government should be making.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Scott Chris (6,149 comments) says:

    Weihana says:- “I’ve been doing things other than reading Kiwiblog such as chasing this bird around my room for the last twenty minutes before it started to take a crap over all of my computer equipment!”

    Whatever turns you on mate. :P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Weihana (4,546 comments) says:

    reid,

    In 100 years or so in an imaginary place where families have changed to become a loose construction of individuals who move in and out of any child’s life, there is no real “family” to which one could turn, in similar circumstances. The state must provide.

    Oh you are such an ignorant twat. I know a gay man who has raised a fine upstanding daughter.. hot too ;) I have never detected any sense that she is not emotionally connected to her father because he lives an alternative lifestyle or that he would not support her in times of need. He’s one of the nicest men I have met and any girl would be lucky to have him as a father. You really are speaking out of your arse with no real life experience.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Weihana (4,546 comments) says:

    Scott lmao

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Weihana (4,546 comments) says:

    Times for drinks… have fun talking about the gays :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    reid (8,691) Says:

    “The family unit is the mechanism to which individuals turn in times of need. In the US for example there are a great many adults and lots of young families as well, all living with their parents, because of the economy.”

    So you are saying that if the ‘family unit’ is destroyed, the state will take the place of this unit. I can then take hold of the role of the ‘family unit’ such as the care and education of children?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Andrei (2,664 comments) says:

    Even if gays had the right to adopt I would object to the state having one label for hetero couples and one label for gay couples. It’s like having one label for white couples and one label for interracial couples and another label for black couples. I

    That statement just goes to show how stupifyingly stupid you are.

    FFS Gay couples cannot breed – they are sterile. Being Gay is not equivalent to ethnicity!

    If you want to raise children, if that is your desire, regardless of gender the pre-requisite is to find someone of the opposite sex who will agree to undertake this worthwhile activity with you. There is a price to pay if you want children, a price in time money and commitment and your “sexuality” has to take a back seat.

    You cannot and should not be able to buy or manufacture children on a whim.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. reid (16,491 comments) says:

    Oh you are such an ignorant twat.

    Er.

    I’m a boy, Weihana. But never mind, I know what you mean.

    Not sure if you’ve read a word I’ve said mate but this is not about a single case and it’s not about all the cases in NZ of “blended” families nor about all the cases in the world of “blended” families. No. This is about all families, every single family in the entire world. We ALL have skin in the game over this, not just the “blended” families.

    I know braying useful idiots don’t get this FACT but it’s true and undeniable in both existence and cogency, is it not?

    Otherwise you’d have to a disgraceful braying useful idiot wouldn’t you, for you’d be advocating four legs good, two legs bad, wouldn’t you. You’d be suggesting, wouldn’t you, that “blended” families, the four-legged ones, are somehow special, much more special than the “two legs” i.e. man-woman-children families.

    I mean sorry mate but that’s how your “”blended” families are discwiminated against” argument stacks up, isn’t it? Correct me if I’m wrong, but you ARE suggesting aren’t you, that the minority somehow have special rights in this. More important than the rights of all the rest of us. That’s not very democratic of you, is it.

    So you are saying that if the ‘family unit’ is destroyed, the state will take the place of this unit. I can then take hold of the role of the ‘family unit’ such as the care and education of children?

    Er, I’m not sure, Andy.

    Can you ask me again, this time in English?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    Weihana at 5:15 pm

    “The only rights where they’re lacking, that I’m aware of, is the right to adopt. That’s important. But the label of marriage is important too in that it is government sanctioned discrimination. Even if gays had the right to adopt I would object to the state having one label for hetero couples and one label for gay couples. It’s like having one label for white couples and one label for interracial couples and another label for black couples. It doesn’t matter if they’re all equal, the different labeling implies a value judgment that I don’t agree the government should be making.”

    But gays are allowed to adopt as long as they have a different sex partner. I am not trying to be facetious but they have the same rights as me. It would be more honest if the discussion wasn’t accompanied by terms such as ‘equal right’ and ‘discrimination’. You don’t want equal rights, you want additional rights. In short, you want a law change to give people the right to adopt children if they are not a traditional ‘family unit’. Why do you have to make things so complicated and wrap them around emotive terms?

    Your example of ‘one label for interracial couples and another label for black couples’ is a bit silly as that difference doesn’t define the word/meaning of marriage.
    Stating that different labeling implies a value judgment, is pure Chomsky and also puts to rest that this is all about equal right and discrimination as changing the word doesn’t change anything.
    Value is in the eye of the beholder and you are making this value judgement, not me.
    What you want is to change the meaning of the word marriage, pure and simple.
    And that would make you happier, how?

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

    Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
    Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
    Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
    Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
    Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
    Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
    Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
    Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
    Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
    Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
    Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
    Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
    Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

    Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    So you are saying that if the ‘family unit’ is destroyed, the state will take the place of this unit. I can then take hold of the role of the ‘family unit’ such as the care and education of children?

    “Er, I’m not sure, Andy.
    Can you ask me again, this time in English?”

    Crikey Reid.
    I mean, is this a scheme of the left with the aim to take over the role of the family unit?
    Along the lines of what Aredhel777 suggested at 2:40 pm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Lucia Maria (2,449 comments) says:

    Scott,

    Christians don’t sacrifice animals to atone for their sins because Jesus became the sacrifice to atone for all our sins, and we only have to confess them to gain absolution. Sacrifice of animals prefigured the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross and the forgiveness of sin through this act.

    However, I don’t know why Christians required to keep a kosher diet.

    Why aren’t Christians required to build a central temple in which to perform carefully prescribed rituals in a land specially chosen for them?

    Because of the Cross, the Sacrifice has been performed. Those carefully prescribed rituals are now practised the Church in many temples (churches) all over the world. It’s called the Mass.

    And why do Christians ignore God’s word regarding keeping the sabbath?

    It’s been moved to the day of Jesus’ Resurrection from the Dead. There’s still a day of rest, it’s just on a more important day.

    It’s important to differentiate between the Old Testament and The Law, and then laws that are made for the Church (and in Old Testament times these were laws made for the Jews, some of which prefigured what the Messiah would fulfil).

    The assumption that I’m getting from your comments here and in other threads is that you believe that the Old Testament was really hard on homosexuals and all other types of sin, but that Jesus was accepting of it all and not worried if people continued to live their lives of non-conformity to the old Jewish ways of doing things, because He was a reformer, a real rebel, “a freakin hippy liberal lefty”, in your words.

    This is false, Jesus was a practising Jew. Not only that, He was and is, God.

    He also came to save us from sin, through dying on the Cross.

    He hung out with sinners because, in His words, “They that are well have no need of a physician, but they that are sick. For I came not to call the just, but sinners. ” (Mark 2:17)

    Jesus never needed to condemn homosexuality, because it was already condemned under the commandment not to commit adultery. This commandment has never changed, however, since the Church has come into existence, it has been further clarified. And Jesus was pretty hard on sexual sin, for example where He says: “And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell. “ This statement is most likely referring to masturbation.

    That’s not a “freakin hippy liberal lefty”, under any stretch of the imagination.

    Jesus is the cure for any person who wants help with their sexual sin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. reid (16,491 comments) says:

    I mean, is this a scheme of the left with the aim to take over the role of the family unit?

    Along the lines of what Aredhel777 suggested at 2:40 pm

    Oh I see, sorry Andy. Yes it would appear to be just that.

    I mean, whether or not that is the motivation, the fact is, poisonous feminism plays out today just as it always has. Perhaps people just think it’s all a coincidence that social thinking has ended up where it is today.

    Strangely enough these are the very same people who think such a proposition as we are discussing is simply preposterous, the world doesn’t work like this, communism collapsed in the 1990’s, and all of that.

    Yet another coincidence is these are also the very same people who form a significant proportion of the braying useful idiot brigade. Isn’t that odd.

    The other substantial rump of that very large brigade are the bleeding heart lefties who as usual fail to see the bigger picture since they’re distracted by the appalling twagedy of the whole situation which makes them want to cwy on the inside and just weally help those poor opwessed “blended” families and save them from the big meanies who just want to punish them.

    Together, they make a powerful cabal of useful idiotry as significant as anything the world has ever seen. Whether or not the Comintern really is behind all of this or not, I don’t really give a fuck about.

    What’s important, to me, is that it’s happening, and it keeps happening. The gays and the poisonous feminists won’t stop and they won’t go away till they get this through. The fact they are ably assisted by the bands of useful idiots without which they are nothing at all, is the real tragedy.

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

    Deborah Russell:

    “As for marriage for lesbian and gay and other non-traditional couples, or trios, or whatever, what is available for one New Zealander must be available for another. If the Government wants to stay in the marriage game, then it should make its version of marriage available to everyone – straight, gay, lesbian, transgender, two or three or more, whatever. That’s only fair.”

    The morally repugnant Russell would have no counter argument against ANY sort of sexually perverse relationship – whether that be adult-minor, adult-animal, adult-corpse … or any other evil and perverted ‘relationship’ one may wish to construct. And if the current legal framework doesn’t support it there’s a simple solution – rewrite the law to suit. Perverts like NAMBLA are already pushing to drop the age of consent as just one example.

    Normalising homosexual relationships was the gateway to any and all perverted and unnatural relationships. That we now try to label these as ‘marriage’ reveals how corrupt, evil, and perverted are those who support, condone, and no doubt participate in such amoral and deviant amoral constructions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. RRM (9,932 comments) says:

    You’ve got it Kris – compulsory homosexuality for all, that’s where it’s heading. Don’t worry there will be training camps provided though to help you get the “hang” of it.

    In the mean time, it’s entirely your place to say what forms of relationship are appropriate between other consenting adults and which are not. And it’s entirely their place to ignore your opinions. So please don’t be shy about speaking up!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Viking2 (11,484 comments) says:

    A lot of days wasted today I see.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Fletch (6,407 comments) says:

    Tell us why, gays need the label. Why? How is it discwimination, when they have every other legal right, in every way. Why do they need the label? Why?

    One reason, I think, is because they are jealous of marriage. It makes them feel better if society accepts their perversions as being normal. In places where gay marriage is now legal, gays don’t take advantage of it much – they don’t really want it. They just don’t *not* want to be able to do it. It’s a “it’s not fair that we can’t, we want it as well’ thing. Once they get the right, they’ll toss it aside and move onto something else they feel has been denied them and toss that aside as well.

    Evil likes to do that – take something that is normal and good and twist it into something perverted and ugly. It mocks the real thing and makes fun of it. So it is with gay marriage. It’s a joke – a caricature of the real thing. A twisted imitation with the Joker’s clown smile painted on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Johnboy (16,651 comments) says:

    I’m all for gay marriage. Once we have got that little perversion accepted as commonplace it won’t be long before I can marry my favourite ewe. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Johnboy (16,651 comments) says:

    God knows what we will adopt though! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. gump (1,650 comments) says:

    Fletch said:

    “One reason, I think, is because they are jealous of marriage. It makes them feel better if society accepts their perversions as being normal. In places where gay marriage is now legal, gays don’t take advantage of it much – they don’t really want it. They just don’t *not* want to be able to do it. It’s a “it’s not fair that we can’t, we want it as well’ thing. Once they get the right, they’ll toss it aside and move onto something else they feel has been denied them and toss that aside as well.

    Evil likes to do that – take something that is normal and good and twist it into something perverted and ugly. It mocks the real thing and makes fun of it. So it is with gay marriage. It’s a joke – a caricature of the real thing. A twisted imitation.”

    —————————-

    What is “normal and good” about marriage?

    Over 50% of the marriages in New Zealand will end in separation or divorce. Which suggests that marriage is its own caricature.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Fletch (6,407 comments) says:

    gump, that isn’t the fault of marriage. You could say the same about eating, which is normal and good, and then say there are so many obese people in this country that it must be a bad thing to do. Divorce isn’t the fault of marriage – it’s the fault of people not honoring their marriage. It’s too easy to get a divorce these days – an escape hatch if people don’t ‘feel’ the marriage is working. It’s too much about feelings and not enough about commitment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Scott Chris (6,149 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria

    “And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell. “ This statement is most likely referring to masturbation.

    Well at least you’re saying there is room for interpretation here.

    He begins by speaking about the importance of making peace with your brother so you won’t end up throttling him. In other words, holding a grudge will lead on to further temptation to sin, maybe even kill. Jesus says, “Get over it”

    Then he turns to speak about adultery. He clearly is saying don’t leer, and don’t grope, because this will lead on to further temptation.

    Nothing to do with masturbation. That is completely out of context.

    The plucking out of eyes and cutting off hands are merely figures of speech, to emphasize the importance of *not flirting*.

    Why on earth would Jesus be so oblique in his reference to masturbation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. reid (16,491 comments) says:

    One reason, I think, is because they are jealous of marriage.

    Indeed Fletch. Poisonous feminists see every good thing through jealous eyes. I think this is why they are so very angry, on a permanent basis. All of them are, aren’t they. Just look around the universities, for example.

    Over 50% of the marriages in New Zealand will end in separation or divorce. Which suggests that marriage is its own caricature.

    gump I’m afraid you profoundly misunderstand the entire point of this whole thread. Suggest a complete re-read.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. leftyliberal (651 comments) says:

    Lucia: I can kinda understand the Christian disdain for the “sin” of homosexuality, but masturbation?

    Really? Why is masturbation a sin? If Christians want their kids to remain virgins until they’re married, you gotta give ‘em some release!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Lucia Maria (2,449 comments) says:

    LeftyLiberal,

    This quote sums up what sex is supposed to be:

    “God means sex to be an act of self-sacrifice and worship – husband and wife, shorn of all self-interest, offering body and soul to each other, loving wholly for the sake of each other, hearts penetrated with the love of God.” link

    Masturbation is using the power of sex for oneself. So, there is no self-sacrifice, but there is self-worship. It’s all about gratification of the self, which is opposite to that which sex was given to us for. And a person who is used to gratifying themselves is going to have trouble being a good spouse and parent, because both require self-sacrifice. That some of the reason as to why it’s a sin

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Lucia Maria (2,449 comments) says:

    Scott,

    Jesus was not being oblique to his audience – the link I gave explained that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    so..are oral and anal ok..there..lucia..?

    ..is it just doing a solo-routine that is a ‘sin’…

    ..bondage/s&m ok..?

    ..yknow..!..’offering body to each other’..?

    ..and..um..!..can’t you do both..?

    ..auto and mutual..?

    ..why is it either/or..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    I broadly agree with Deborah that the state should merely register relationships, and it should be up to individual couples if they wish to have that relationship called a marriage by the particular religion they follow.

    Gee David, what a bloody surprise, a single male with no interest in the institution is actively lobbying against it to impress his gay mates.

    Well done.

    Very original.

    Deborah is clearly very confused about a great deal, and you seem to be too David, you are applying a certain ‘logic’ to this issue that you clearly don’t with quite a few others.

    I wonder who is pulling the strings…….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Tell us why, gays need the label. Why? How is it discwimination, when they have every other legal right, in every way. Why do they need the label? Why?

    Because they want to give the finger to the rest of us just trying to get on with our lives.

    I have no particular issue with humans that are gay, that is their business between themselves and their maker, but what pisses me off is the fact that some of them appear to have such a pathological hatred of everyone and everything not strictly in their control.

    Marriage is not currently in their control, so they want it, and they want it now, the fact that it pisses off the Christians is just the icing on the cake.

    These activists are nothing but social nihilists, they don’t care about real equality, they only care about drawing attention to themselves and their bullshit agenda.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. reid (16,491 comments) says:

    phil it’s interesting you’ve ignored the significant distinction between “loving wholly for the sake of each other” as an act of self-sacrifice and for the sake of each other, as opposed to an act of self-worship.

    It’s just I would have thought, being one of the good guys and all, you would have been opposed to those self-worshiping acts, or is it really the case you just pick and choose which venal, self-serving acts you support and which you don’t, as you go along?

    Shunda: snap.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..you would have been opposed to those self-worshiping acts..”

    masturbation..hell no..i’m not opposed to that…

    ..i’ve been a major fan since i first found i could..

    ..some of the most fun you can have on yr own…

    ..(recent medical evidence also supports that older men continue masturbating..

    ..i’m just following doctors’-orders…)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..“loving wholly for the sake of each other” as an act of self-sacrifice and for the sake of each other..”

    and that surely describes anal..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Scott Chris (6,149 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria

    You appear to have skipped to the last unimportant line in my post. Forget that for the moment.

    There is a *pattern* in Jesus’ rhetoric as described in Matthew 5 20-30

    1) Jesus addresses the sin of Murder. Then he warns his followers not to harbour resentment, for this will lead to sin.

    2) Jesus addresses the sin of Adultery. Then he warns his followers not to make eye contact or physical contact with the opposite sex, for this will lead to sin.

    1) Sin: Murder. Cause: Harbouring resentment.
    2) Sin: Adultery. Cause: Eye and physical contact.

    I urge you to look for and identify a similar kinds of rhetorical patterns. The Beatitudes for instance.

    Blessed are the…. for they shall……
    Blessed are the…. for they shall……

    That was his style Lucia. I challenge you to take this post and consult your priest, because I doubt you have the humility to accept God’s word from a heathen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    “..“loving wholly for the sake of each other” as an act of self-sacrifice and for the sake of each other..”

    and that surely describes anal..?

    Hmmm, the concept of lovingly f@cking someone up the arse, ok.

    Well Phil, I personally think that anal sex is primarily about making someone ‘your bitch’ than anything mutually loving or respectful of the dignity of your lover, an act of domination and control.

    The thing is, you see, we all know that the arse hole is primarily an orifice for the passing of faeces, if you have one, you are certainly privy to this knowledge, and any other use of this orifice can’t be detached from it’s primary purpose (the smell tends to give it away too).

    Human sexual behaviour is an interesting subject, and like any human ‘appetite’ one can get to a point of over indulgence and a perversion of what can be considered ‘healthy’, that contemporary culture currently chooses to ignore this doesn’t make it any less so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. reid (16,491 comments) says:

    masturbation..hell no..i’m not opposed to that…

    phil I hate to say it but possibly this is precisely how your troubles began.

    Perhaps if you didn’t masturbate quite so much, you could be successful, wealthy executives like the rest of us are.

    It’s a lot of fun, phil.

    Going big game fishing, hunting, heli-ski-ing.

    All because we stopped masturbating a long, long time ago, phil.

    You should give it a go.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “…Going big game fishing, hunting, heli-ski-ing…”

    done lots of that..(except the heli-skiing..)..meh..!

    ..anyway..why either/or..?

    ..why not hei-ski..and masturbate..?

    ..be dexterous..multi-task..(like ‘executives’ do..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Scott Chris (6,149 comments) says:

    Crikey reid, don’t tell me you don’t play solitaire anymore?

    Bugger all that endless forplay and the interminable cuddle at the end. Enough already, time to get some shuteye!

    Much more fun then spewing your guts and freezing your balls of only to yank one of God’s creatures out of the heaving depths by way of a hook in its mouth?

    As for heli-skiing… well I’d much prefer the polite discourse on kiwiblog.

    philu says:- “..why not hei-ski..and masturbate..?”

    Cause your willie might freeze and snap off

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Aredhel777 (290 comments) says:

    “Lucia: I can kinda understand the Christian disdain for the “sin” of homosexuality, but masturbation?”

    Please bear in mind that Lucia is a Catholic. Not every Christian or denomination of Christianity officially holds the position that masturbation is wrong. Catholics hold particularly stringent views on sex.

    I say that in full respect to Lucia, of course. I have enormous respect for Catholics. They are amongst the ballsiest, most courageous and politically incorrect people in our society. I am not a Catholic because there are many things about Catholicism that I cannot accept, but I admire how they are unafraid to uncompromisingly hold unpopular positions even though they get trashed by the media as a result.

    “How would your evangelical pastor of 15 years feel about you saying:
    Aredhel777 (98) Says:
    October 21st, 2011 at 2:22 pm
    Oh fuck.”

    You know, you are actually right on this one. I swear more than I should. It comes of spending too much time in various internet cultures where swearing is a fact of life. It’s a habit I am trying to break over time, but I have lapses.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Lucia Maria (2,449 comments) says:

    OK Scott, let’s get back to the heart of your comment:

    Then he turns to speak about adultery. He clearly is saying don’t leer, and don’t grope, because this will lead on to further temptation.

    Nothing to do with masturbation. That is completely out of context.

    The context is sexual sin. The right hand that causes you to sin, is the hand doing stuff that it oughtn’t to. So, don’t leer, don’t grope, don’t fondle yourself, because it’s better to cut off that hand than to burn in hell for eternity.

    You should seriously read that link.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Lucia Maria (2,449 comments) says:

    Aredhel777, thanks!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Sex is in fact one of the MOST selfish things one can do…..indeed selfish pursuit of ones orgasmic release is at the heart of the sexual act. Tell a Man he has to achieve an erection and penetrate a Woman’s body and that he must do it with no thought of self involved….silly primate nonsense.

    True love itself is purely self-interested…one cannot really “love” anyone or thing from a non self based position…that nonsense too. To love is to value…and its the individual self that values…as Ayn Rand said…”To say I love you one must first be able to say “I”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    um..!..news-flash shunda…!

    some women like/enjoy anal..

    …and anyway..i was thinking about her ..using the marvels of modern electronic toys..doing it to you…eh..?

    ..wouldn’t that be a stellar example of you ‘giving’ to yr partner..?

    ..proving you aren’t making her yr ‘bitch’…

    ..and do you never have rough/hard/fast ‘normal’/missionary sex there shunda..?

    ..is it all candlelight and subtle-movements..?

    ..no banging on the formica table in the kitchen then..?

    …or doggy behind the back shed..?

    ..in the back of the car..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Scott Chris (6,149 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria

    You have not taken in what I was saying.

    I’ll try yelling.

    ADULTERY HAS GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH MASTURBATION!!!!!!!

    I repeat my challenge.

    Aredhel, I deleted my previous comment. Was wrongly addressed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    You know, you are actually right on this one. I swear more than I should. It comes of spending too much time in various internet cultures where swearing is a fact of life. It’s a habit I am trying to break over time, but I have lapses.

    And yet in evangelical circles ‘swearing’ is one of the worst things a Christian can do.

    I say FUCK THAT, swearing is not necessarily good, and is not appropriate in many circumstances, but at worst, it’s evidence of ‘a heart that needs work’.

    I have seen some shocking attitudes and acts go completely unchallenged within organised Christianity, and then see the most ridiculous attitudes towards the guy that says “fuck” when he hits his thumb with a hammer.

    This is why no one is listening to ‘the church’ any more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. reid (16,491 comments) says:

    phil, care to return to topic. Yes I know. We all played.

    Getting boooooooriiiing.

    Do you have an issue with the thread topic, if so, what is it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Reading “The Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe” by Jack Goody. A fascinating thesis regarding how the Vatican changed marriage laws in Europe after it became a political power. He shows how the Church waged war on the traditional view of marriage in a way that did two things. First, it gave it immense power over nobles and royalty who, due to new restrictions on whom they could marry had to regularly seek Vatican permission to marry in violation of those rules. It caused them to suck up to the Vatican.

    But the new rules also changed the ability of couples to have heirs. The result was that many people died with no heirs and the Church got the property. It resulted in a massive transfer of wealth from the community to what amounted to the church/state.”

    The myths surrounding the supposed religious origins and monopoly on Marriage are legion it seems…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Mick Mac (1,091 comments) says:

    OH Boy
    I go away with Scott lying through his back teeth and come back and what do we have?
    Scott lying through his back teeth yet again.

    So scott what do you think Jesus meant when he said “a man who looks at a woman with lust in his eyes is an adulterer”?

    Lets help you a little.
    there you are on the john and having a five fingered episode and thinking about what?
    if it’s not your wife it is adultery!

    bingo does that help jog your memory??

    Jesus is after your heart not your prick big fella.
    maybe you need to read the link lucia put up for you.
    or stop lying :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Mick Mac (1,091 comments) says:

    shunda you are so right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    ..and do you never have rough/hard/fast ‘normal’/missionary sex there shunda..?

    ..is it all candlelight and subtle-movements..?

    ..no banging on the formica table in the kitchen then..?

    …or doggy behind the back shed..?

    ..in the back of the car..?

    You take me for a sexual ‘prude’ because I don’t take my wife up the arse???

    I am not ashamed of my sexuality Phil, and not prudish in the least, my wife and I enjoy a very healthy (and exciting) sexual relationship, but I don’t ‘do her’ up the bum and nor does she want me too.

    And if you need sex toys to enjoy sex, you aint doing it right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Aredhel777 (290 comments) says:

    “And yet in evangelical circles ‘swearing’ is one of the worst things a Christian can do.”

    Um…. in no way am I getting on my high horse and looking down on people for swearing. It would be most hypocritical. I know the sort of person you’re talking about and I assure you I don’t fall in that category. It amused me no end when there was some teacher who was recently caught at Hebron Christian College feeling up young girls and watching kiddy porn from the school computer and that was just fine, but swearing and reading Harry Potter will send you to hell. It makes me angry actually, because it gives Christians such a bad name.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Scott Chris (6,149 comments) says:

    The Scorned says:- “True love itself is purely self-interested”

    I don’t agree at all. I lost my dog 4 months ago to a brain tumour and I felt like I’d lost a child. I still miss her terribly.

    That was pure unconditional love.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Um…. in no way am I getting on my high horse and looking down on people for swearing. It would be most hypocritical. I know the sort of person you’re talking about and I assure you I don’t fall in that category.

    For the record, I didn’t think you did, your comment just reminded my of my own experiences within the pentecostal church.

    Strain out a gnat and swallow a camel, I wouldn’t have believed it if I hadn’t seen it so many times.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Scott Chris (6,149 comments) says:

    Mick Mac:- “Scott lying through his back teeth yet again.”

    Have you ever:

    Looked lustfully at a woman
    Wanted to hurt or kill someone
    Wanted to steal something
    Doubted God
    Been jealous of your neighbour’s car

    If so, you are adulterer, a murderer, a thief, an athiest, and a coveter according to your interpretation of that verse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Scott…

    I don’t agree at all. I lost my dog 4 months ago to a brain tumour and I felt like I’d lost a child. I still miss her terribly.

    That was pure unconditional love.

    Sorry but not it wasn’t…if you really loved that dog then it was pure self that caused that. Unconditional love is a buzz phrase vapid nonsense …all real love is conditional on the fact that the object of your love gives you value….and its that value that you respond to and miss when its gone. Would you want to be “loved” by some one who saw no value to themselves in you but was just “going through the motions”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    I lost my Father in February so I have had time to really examine my feelings about this and the source of them…and my grief and sense of loss are from MY most inner self….they are feelings of what I have lost,what I am missing….just as the feelings you experienced about your dog are from our most inner self…..they cannot be otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Aredhel777 (290 comments) says:

    “Unconditional love is a buzz phrase vapid nonsense”

    No, it is not.

    Sorry to hear about your dog by the way Scott. ): I would be heartbroken if my own dog died of a brain tumour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Aredhel….yes it is. How can you love (value) anything without conditions? People fall out of love all the time…that’s because the conditions of the relationship changed to the point that the value that they previously saw in the object of their affection had gone. When we fall in love with someone its the aspects that we see in them that are personal values to US that we are falling in love with…the person is the embodiment of what WE find valuable and attractive.

    And yes….sorry about your dog Scott…pets are just as heartbreaking to lose as people..sometimes even more so depending on your own value of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    dogs are so non-ideological…

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Scott Chris (6,149 comments) says:

    The Scorned:- “pure self that caused that”

    You are half right and half wrong. It wasn’t pure. It was a mixture of self interest and compassion for my part at least. My dog’s love went beyond being fed. Only a dog owner can understand that bond.

    Wasn’t pure self either.

    You appear to be saying that everything has a rational, self interested basis. I disagree.

    Even if compassion evolved as a rational mechanism to help preserve the gene pool, it is still a genuinely selfless emotion.

    That being said, the whole relationship is one I ascribe the value *pure, unconditional love*, so there you go. Doesn’t make sense, but describes my depth of feeling quite aptly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Scott….NO human emotion can be separate from ones self….there is no-one and nothing apart from YOU who can feel what YOU are feeling about something. We cannot feel another’s feelings for them…we can certainly empathize and imagine how WE would be feeling in their position…but that’s ALL we can do.

    Compassion is no different to all other human emotions…its a self sourced thing that only WE can feel…and we can feel nothing but what WE ourselves do.

    And all human action…everyone…is rational ..as the ACTOR see’s it. Every action is preformed to get to a greater value than what one previously had. Its called Praxeology…look it up…fascinating.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Scott Chris (6,149 comments) says:

    Thanks for the condolences.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Aredhel777 (290 comments) says:

    “Aredhel….yes it is. How can you love (value) anything without conditions?”

    While I won’t continue with this vein of conversation, as we really should make some token effort to stay on topic: clearly, it depends on what you mean by love. Jesus commanded us to love our enemies. If a person is one’s enemy, they have characteristics which you dislike. According to your worldview, to love your enemies is therefore a contradiction in terms. However, what Jesus means is that a person’s characteristics should not factor into whether we are kind to them and that we should actively find ways to be nice to people even if they don’t ‘deserve it’. This mirrors God’s unconditional love to humans.. because we are such sinful creatures, we don’t deserve his love, but he loves us anyway and wants what is best for us. I reject psychological egoism utterly (the theory that humans always behave in a self-interested way without exception.)

    With that, I’m going to go and cuddle my dog. :smug:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Mick Mac (1,091 comments) says:

    Scott Chris (2,318) Says:
    October 21st, 2011 at 10:34 pm

    deflection yet again, wake up Scott, hello?
    Why have you lied?

    Do you think on the last day when you are kneeling before Jesus that you are going to argue the toss and deflect and ignore?

    What did Jesus say about liars and the kingdom Scott?
    come on

    what did he say about those who make those who loved him stumble?

    you who, like to quote the bible when it suits you, please answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Aredhel….Jesus Christ is hardly a source for good advice on near anything….and his view on love,while nice and fluffy, is a path to ones own destruction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Scott Chris (6,149 comments) says:

    The Scorned says:- “Compassion is no different to all other human emotions”

    Depends how you define it.

    Yes it is an emotion, so by that definition it has that quality in common with all other emotions.

    What differentiates it is that it is not self interested. It is ‘other-self’ interested.

    Self interest is what we are analyzing here isn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Scott Chris (6,149 comments) says:

    Mick Mac

    Just scoll past it mate. There’s no point carrying on a conversation where all one party is interested in is venting his resentment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Scott…..there is no conflict between concern for another whom you value and your own self-interest….indeed love for another and their well-being is MOST defiantly self interested.

    Its from your OWN self that your love for another comes…so their well-being and happiness is of course supremely important to YOU…this is why parents do so much, including risking their own lives for their children, why soldiers dive on top of hand grenades landing in the midst of a platoon, why people donate organs to people who need them to live…all actions done from self-interest and the protection of ones most personally held values….values that one personally holds in a hierarchy of lesser to greater ones.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Aredhel777 (290 comments) says:

    “why soldiers dive on top of hand grenades landing in the midst of a platoon”

    Seems a funny way to express your own self-interest. If it’s for the good feeling you get when you do something good for someone, well, that lasts half a second before you get blown up. Surely the greater act of self-interest would be to run away. Also, it does not necessarily follow that simply because there is a possible self-interested motivation for something, that motivation was *the* causal factor. I am not a perfect person but I know that I have done things for altruistic reasons before.

    (I actually wrote an A+ essay on this subject. Fun times. Obviously the above is a very short summary of a lot of arguments that could be made.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Its from your OWN self that your love for another comes…so their well-being and happiness is of course supremely important to YOU…this is why parents do so much, including risking their own lives for their children, why soldiers dive on top of hand grenades landing in the midst of a platoon, why people donate organs to people who need them to live…all actions done from self-interest and the protection of ones most personally held values….values that one personally holds in a hierarchy of lesser to greater ones.

    Aren’t you just arguing about semantics??

    Well actually, perhaps you are just blatantly contradicting yourself and becoming quite confused.

    If you think that a soldier diving on a hand grenade to save his buddies (and thus ending his life) is “self interest” then I think you are terribly confused.
    You are vainly attempting to suggest that there are no ‘selfless’ acts, which implies that all acts are therefore selfish.
    It is quite hard to see an act that ends ones own life to save others as selfish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Aredhel…even those “altruist” actions were preformed from some sense of your own self interest… gain a value you did not previously have. Mother Teressa was acting in her own self interest as she saw it ( doing what her God wanted,brownie points) when she worked with the poor….as was Ghandi, MLK…even Jesus. Getting crucified was a means to attaining a higher value for him…Mans salvation…if you believe all that.

    Shunda…The soldier diving on the grenade does so because his friends are of such value to HIM that he could not bear to see them harmed even at the risk of his own life…the same as a parent would for a much loved child. That’s the hierarchy of values that we all have whether we know it or not kicking in in an emergency moment. The soldiers had to make a split second evaluation of what he values more and act on that…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    The hierarchy of values each of us have is why we are far more distressed and grief stricken by the death of say a family pet then we will be by that of the vague acquaintance who lives down the road a bit. Its because WE value the pet and its existence and place in OUR lives more than the acquaintance who we had much less personal contact with. That doesn’t mean we feel nothing for him….just naturally not as much as for the pets life that is far closer to our own.

    Further out again we might not care at all about a busload of Pakistanis going over a cliff over there……we didn’t know them at all so the personal feeling is zero….that’s just life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Aredhel….Jesus Christ is hardly a source for good advice on near anything….and his view on love,while nice and fluffy, is a path to ones own destruction.

    On the contrary, when one actually follows the teachings he gave, it can be very enriching of life for you and those around you.

    And His view on ‘love’ was anything but “nice and fluffy”, His definition certainly won’t appeal to the lazy, selfish, or proud, but it will help all of those people if they actually listen to it and apply the lessons.

    Following self interest is often the path to ones own destruction, I have seen it repeatedly in work, relationships, and pretty much anything else people involve themselves in.

    Human motives are complex, and also often hidden completely within ones own mind, to start proclaiming that they are always this, or always that is just silly. The only thing we can use to gain any insight into the motivations of an individual is their history, their actions, and their reactions, anything else is just blind, unverifiable speculation.

    “Only the spirit knows the heart of a man”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Following self interest is often the path to ones own destruction, I have seen it repeatedly in work, relationships, and pretty much anything else people involve themselves in.

    True….it certainly can be….if not in accordance with the facts of the objective reality about us and its law of cause and effect.

    But no matter how hidden the fact remains that all human action is driven to attain a greater value as the actor concerned see’s it…from rolling over in ones sleep, to hunting for food,to yawning,to starting a business….to even committing suicide. All actions done to gain a new value….and all rational actions for those doing them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Scott Chris (6,149 comments) says:

    The Scorrned says:- “The soldier diving on the grenade does so because his friends are of such value to HIM that he could not bear to see them harmed”

    We’re not talking about best consequence here, because as Aredhel pointed out, the act of ultimate self preservation is to run away.

    Killing yourself to benefit yourself makes no sense other than for those who’s primary ambition is to be remembered fondly, or who have strong religious convictions.

    No single action has a single motive, but whilst human beings are ultimately mostly selfish beings, that is balanced by emotional compassion* and the ability to reason.

    >*emotional compassion as distinct from reasoned self sacrifice. Big difference.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Scott Chris (6,149 comments) says:

    The Scorned

    Regarding self interest: Everything is generated from the self, and is therefore inextricably linked to it, however I contend that some ideas transcend the self.

    My purely selfish inner child wanted to keep my dog alive for ever.

    Balancing that was the rational moral idea that once my dog had been euthanized, she would no longer suffer seizures, and she would no longer be in pain. So I decided that in all fairness, when the day came when she no longer enjoyed going for walks or eating, for a *sustained period*, I would take her for her last trip to the vets.

    The rational moral decision went against the wishes of my purely selfish inner child, and was constructed on the idea that pain in another being that you love is bad, *aside* from my ever-present emotional response.

    I acknowledge that my dog’s pain was also causing me pain through the compassion mechanism, and so it would be in my interests to put an end to that pain, but ultimately, I was genuinely acting in *my dog’s best interest* when I had her killed. It was the hardest thing I have ever had to do.

    Regarding grief: Grief is a purely selfish emotion, unless it is empathetic grief.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Andrei wrote:

    see the reason why the Church and society as a whole have a stake in marriage is because when one man and one woman who are married conceive a child they have undertaken to be responsible for the raising of that child.

    Rare to see such a patent non sequitur. Just unbelievable that anyone could not realise how arbitrary and silly it is to think their particular view on marriage should be everyone’s. Folks like Andrei should just stop and think about how desirable it is to have government pick winners on all sorts of other issues. The government aint going to come down on your side on everything else Andrei, and if you demand government decide what marriage is on your behalf then expect government to decide on the merits of teaching creationism or Easter trading on mine.

    Leave each to their own, fool.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote