Gay issues

October 6th, 2011 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Rainbow Wellington asked all the parties their views on various issues. For some reason they asked not just about gay issues but also weird stuff like prisoners having the vote. Anyway I thought the responses from the parties on and marriage (both of which I support) was interesting.

Gay Adoption

ACT – ACT supports ending the discrimination same sex couples face when trying to adopt a child. The Adoption Act 1955 is out-dated and the criteria for adoption should focus on how fit a person or people are to be parents, not their sexual orientation.

A very clear statement that states they support ending discrimination and that sexual orientation should not be a criteria, rather how fit people will be as parents.

Labour – Labour believes that the current adoption laws are antiquated and discriminatory, which need to be modernised and updated. The current Act fails to take into account the number of legislative changes introduced over the past decade areas such as assisted reproduction technology, surrogacy and the legal status of de facto relationships and civil unions. A Labour-led government will enact legislation that will require the Law Commission to review and update adoption law to better reflect modern New Zealand. Labour has already drafted and tabled a Bill to give effect to this.

What I find interesting is that Labour’s answer doesn’t in fact answer the question. They say the Act is discriminatory but don’t specifically say they will allow same sex adoptions. They just say it should be modernised and adopted.

Maori Party – If there is a need for children to be cared for we believe strongly that whānau, regardless of sexual orientation, must be encouraged to care for these children within the family.

Again very clear. The Greens to no surprise are also explicit.

Greens – The Green Party’s policy on this is that parenting skills are distinct from sexual orientation or gender identity. We support equal criteria for both ‘rainbow’ and heterosexual couples in their assessment for suitability and eligibility for parenting. Spokesperson Kevin Hague has formed and convenes a cross party group to reform adoption law.

National won’t commit either way:

We are aware of issue with the Adoption Act. It’s an old piece of legislation and has been identified as an area for potential review. We are currently running a very full justice agenda focused on making New Zealand safer, putting more police on our streets, and reducing crime. In the context of the current economic environment reform of adoption laws is not a priority for the Government.

Labour – Our initial focus has been to ensure that existing rights under marriage should also extend to civil unions, and we will complete that work. But Labour believes in formal equality before the law for people in any relationship status, including marriage.

Again, no specific commitment at all. Both times they avoid the question.

Greens – The Green Party strongly supports full equality and believes that this will eventually be achieved either through the amendment of the Marriage Act to include us, or through the repeal of the Marriage Act (which would leave civil unions as the method by which the state formally recognises relationships, and marriage as a purely religious institution).

I actually quite like the Green position of having the state registering relationships only, and leaving marriages to the different religions who could adopt their own rules.

ACT – To be clear now, I should have voted in favour of the Bill in all its stages. I admit I don’t understand why, having legalised civil unions between two people, irrespective of their gender, there is still pressure to provide for same sex ‘marriage’. In the English language I have always understood ‘marriage’ to be between a man and a woman.

Interesting to see Don say he should have voted for civil unions. I was disappointed when he didn’t vote for them at the final reading.

National – In the context of the current economic environment and our strong focus on providing stability, reducing debt, and returning to surplus by 2014 the government currently has no plans to amend the Marriage Act.

Of course on an issue such as this, most MPs will have a conscience vote regardless of party.

A reader has pointed out this quote from UK PM David Cameron:

“I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative.”

Would be great to hear that from an MP here.

Tags: ,

451 Responses to “Gay issues”

  1. backster (2,082 comments) says:

    National’s policy of getting on with things that matter instead of continuing the Clark policy of family destruction, and societal manipulation seems the most appropriate policy to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Pete George (22,868 comments) says:

    As far as I know UnitedFuture doesn’t address these issues specifically in policy, presumably becasue these would normally be conscience issues. A past statement:

    …we recognise that families come in many shapes and sizes, and a one size fits all approach will not work.

    “Every family deserves our respect, support and encouragement to become more resilient, to get on with their lives the way they want to.

    “We need to devote more attention to family function, and to supporting families to provide a loving and nurturing environment for their children, whatever their circumstances.”

    That sounds fine to me, and I like the “whatever their circumstances”.

    While I have my own (fairly tolerant and practical) views on gay adoption and marriage these are the sorts of issues I would get feedback from the electorate on and represent the electorate view as much as possible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. tvb (4,210 comments) says:

    The National Party answers are plain stupid it does not assist me is deciding to vote for them. The idiot that drafted them should find another line of work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. awb (301 comments) says:

    Once again the major parties fudge their position to the point of being useless, Act flip flops, and the Greens say exactly what they stand for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. James Butler (76 comments) says:

    “getting on with things that matter”

    For your definition of “things that matter”. Marriage and adoption matter like fuck to people who want to get married or adopt, and their friends and families. Anyway, whatever you may think of the policies, the Clark government managed to pass both economic *and* social policies at the same time. Getting lots of legislation done quickly has never been the problem for New Zealand governments before.

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

    Note the level of spin:

    What I find interesting is that Labour’s answer doesn’t in fact answer the question. They say the Act is discriminatory but don’t specifically say they will allow same sex adoptions. They just say it should be modernised and adopted.

    Compared to:

    National won’t commit either way.

    Also:

    Again, no specific commitment at all. Both times they avoid the question.

    Compared to:

    Of course on an issue such as this, most MPs will have a conscience vote regardless of party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Heh. Does anyone know what ol’ Banksie’s stance is on this issue?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. simonway (371 comments) says:

    They explain the reasoning behind the questions here. On prisoners’ right to vote, they say:

    The reinstatement of the right of prison inmates to vote in accordance with our international commitments. In past decades lgtbi citizens have found themselves in prison deprived of their rights to vote for those who ultimately changed that situation and so we feel strongly and sympathetically towards others similarly deprived, and note with alarm the ease with which civil rights can be removed for reasons of ignorance and prejudice subsequent to their instatement.

    Makes sense that a historically marginalised group would be opposed to all attempts to disenfranchise citizens, imo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. anonymouse (695 comments) says:

    A Labour-led government will enact legislation that will require the Law Commission to review and update adoption law

    So are Labour saying that they would give the commission the power to draft legislation, or simply that they would accept all recommendations from the Law commission?

    Either of these is a huge change in the process of legislation, especially on an issue that many in parliament would consider a conscience issue?

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

    I believe that marriage by definition is between a man and a woman (I don’t want to debate this issue here). Interestingly, part of me agrees with the Greens in separating the civil and religious aspects; leave people free to make their own sexual choices / partnership choices etc. THE PROBLEM I have with this view though is that there is no willingness (by Greens and other liberals) to uncouple the consequences of such actions. If people want to live their own individual lives, fair enough, but to then expect the rest of us to pay for the cost of broken relationships is a bit on the nose.

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

    Another interesting point here is that the Left have been rather opposed to adoption reform because of the ramifications if could have on abortion views/policy (and true, I concede, the view that natural parents are the best parents). But what this new lobby wants is a reform of adoption NOT for the sake of children, but for the sake of gay people who want something.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    Natonals reply is not non-commital, its evasive to the point of suspecting that it was drafted by Sir Humphrey Appleby.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Pete George – “presumably becasue these would normally be conscience issues.”

    Well perhaps Peter Dunn would care to elaborate. After all, he is quite clear on the prohibition issue.

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

    When you stick male genitalia up a man’s anus, it does not make a baby. But hey, let’s let two men adopt children so we can pretend it’s all normal.

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

    EWS – the definition of marriage is whatever the heck the legislation decides it as. Your ‘belief’ on the matter has no effect on that.

    The law defines homicide as the murdering of one person by another – the fact that you ‘choose’ not to ‘believe’ that does not affect its definition.

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

    East Wellington Superhero (353) Says:
    October 6th, 2011 at 10:41 am

    When you stick male genitalia up a man’s anus, it does not make a baby. But hey, let’s let two men adopt children so we can pretend it’s all normal.

    Aaand the loving, compassionate, kind and empathetic Christians enter the fray.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. James Butler (76 comments) says:

    @EWS: “THE PROBLEM I have with this view though is that there is no willingness (by Greens and other liberals) to uncouple the consequences of such actions. If people want to live their own individual lives, fair enough, but to then expect the rest of us to pay for the cost of broken relationships is a bit on the nose.”

    Simple. As a Green, I don’t believe that making it easier for people in a relationship to commit to one another, and benefit from that commitment being recognised by society, will lead to more “broken relationships”. Exactly the opposite in fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. iMP (2,248 comments) says:

    The persistent issue I have with politicised gay agendas is this: the defining of “human rights” and social access ON THE BASIS OF HOMOSEXUALITY. Gays are not denied anything…they can join the armed forces, vote, adopt children and get married, but activists want these things ON THE BASIS of what they do sexually, which they define as a sub-culture.

    I simply don’t accept that; any more than I think dog-lovers or vegetarians should have special “human rights.” Social issues like thes e should be upheld and defined on the basis of your humanity, not your changeable sexual preferences or appetites.

    Everyone is free to practice gay sex, live in a gay relationship if they wish, but I am not going to be forced to define that as an institutional pillar and accord it special treatment on the basis of its sexuality. Bad law.

    If gays can adopt: then so can ‘ artists,’ ‘yachties,’ ‘Morris Dancers’ or ‘Rugby fanatics’ which of course they all do, but not on the basis of their yachting or rugby.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    Where’s lee to tell us all we’re going to hell?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    Yeah iMP! Damned morris dancers, there’s an offence to decency and the family unit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    I always find it interesting that people like DPF (that have no personal interest in the institution of marriage) still like to take strong positions on the issue none the less.

    And is it an issue? no, it is not, it is just a way to attack the status quo and is simply social change for the sake of social change, bragging rights for the liberal elite if you like.

    Usually, the people I know that aren’t married that have a strong position on this are simply projecting issues from a troubled childhood (usually due to a troubled parental relationship) into a gay ‘rights’ issue, it simply isn’t a real issue, it is about people that weren’t cuddled enough as kids and didn’t like mummy and daddy fighting all the time. Unleashing the ‘fags’ on marriage is a wonderful way to get even.

    This is a non issue, it is stupid, counter intuitive and just plain nonsensical, combined with the relatively few gay people (of an already tiny, tiny minority) that even want to uptake either adoption or ‘marriage’, the issue becomes one of the most absurd resource wasted issues of modern times.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. simonway (371 comments) says:

    Another interesting point here is that the Left have been rather opposed to adoption reform because of the ramifications if could have on abortion views/policy (and true, I concede, the view that natural parents are the best parents).

    What are you talking about? When has “the Left” opposed “adoption reform”, which specific “reforms” were opposed, and what are these “ramifications” you speak of?

    But what this new lobby wants is a reform of adoption NOT for the sake of children, but for the sake of gay people who want something.

    Under the current law, perfectly fit parents are prevented from adopting children because of their relationships. How does this benefit children?

    When you stick male genitalia up a man’s anus, it does not make a baby.

    Really? Who knew?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. James Stephenson (2,040 comments) says:

    Marriage and adoption matter like fuck to people who want to get married or adopt, and their friends and families.

    I don’t give a flying fuck what people that want to adopt think. The only important party in that discussion is the child, and currently there are more than enough potential adopters around – gay adoption is a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist. I am happy to state clearly that adoption criteria should favour arrangement that provide both male and female role-models.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. rouppe (919 comments) says:

    My emphasis:

    Greens – The Green Party strongly supports full equality and believes that this will eventually be achieved either through the amendment of the Marriage Act to include us, or through the repeal of the Marriage Act (which would leave civil unions as the method by which the state formally recognises relationships, and marriage as a purely religious institution).

    They nearly have it right, but ass backwards. Marriage is and always has been the civil recognition of the event. The wedding ceremony is the religious institution.

    This is why I opposed the civil union bill from the outset. Labour created a completely duplicate Act of Paliament that sat alongside the Marriage Act. All they had to do was recognise same-sex couples as being eligible under the Marriage Act. It is a completely unrelated discussion about whether the particular religous body will accept having the wedding ceremony in their place of worship.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. iMP (2,248 comments) says:

    The ACT position is oxymoronic…they want to end “discrimination” against gay adoption then say that parentage should be on the basis of parental fitness not sexual orientation??? My point exactly. It’s not about the sex.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    Explain your idea of what an oxymoron is iMP, it does not seem to be like our earth idea of what an oxymoron is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Aaand the loving, compassionate, kind and empathetic Christians enter the fray.

    It’s a pretty nice (loving) thing to stop someone sticking a fork in their eye, what’s the difference with warning against sticking a prick up a bum? (that is clearly designed/evolved for shitting).

    You can’t get around reality Courage W, an arsehole is made for pooing, not pumping.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. simonway (371 comments) says:

    iMP is a perfect example of the socon who thinks granting equal rights to others means that majority groups are being persecuted.

    iMP: The current adoption law allows a child to have an adoptive “mother” and a “father” (a man and a woman). An adopted child may have either or both, but cannot have two adoptive fathers or adoptive mothers. If the law were changed to say that two people may adopt a child as a couple, and the child can have a “first parent” and a “second parent”, then there would be no reference to sexual orientation in the legislation. There would be no “special rights”, but same-sex couples would now be allowed to adopt children, using the same criteria for parental fitness as opposite-sex couples — the discrimination would no longer exist. This is the position ACT support in their statement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. simonway (371 comments) says:

    it is just a way to attack the status quo

    The status quo’s a bit rubbish really. I reckon it’s worth attacking.

    an arsehole is made for pooing, not pumping.

    Don’t knock it till you’ve tried it. You need a prostate for the full experience, though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    In UnitedFuture we aim to make New Zealand the best place to live and raise a family whatever the make-up of the family. Spending time debating the ideal make-up of a family is dancing on the head of a pin and wasting time. Outdated legislation that doesn’t reflect the realities of modern New Zealand families would no doubt be in need of an overall. However I must point out that Peter’s focus is currently on Child Support reformation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Pete George (22,868 comments) says:

    Shunda – I have a strong position on marriage, I believe in a strong commitment to my partner and as part of that I’ve chosen marriage. I personally don’t see what I should deny others something similar if that’s what they want to choose, it won’t do me any harm and I don’t see how it will harm society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Just to throw a curve ball here…. Won’t be long before men can receive a transplanted, lab grown womb. So men will be able to conceive their own children:

    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/why-not-artificial-wombs

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. kowtow (7,656 comments) says:

    Conscience votes and MPs be damned.
    The political elites are stuffing everything up.
    Time for a little democracy again and letting the people decide on these hugely important changes to our society.
    Referenda that bind ,not minority interest group activism.

    Cameron is no conservative,he is a puppet on a string.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Monique Watson – “UF philosophy – Outdated legislation that doesn’t reflect the realities of modern New Zealand families would no doubt be in need of an overall.” [sic]

    Really? I mean REALLY? How far does that idea extend pray tell?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Chthoniid (2,029 comments) says:

    I’m in favour of gay marriage. I see no reason to give them the privilege of escaping the prolonged misery so many heterosexual couples have to endure.

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

    @Courage Wolf

    Your positivist view means that if the law says “it’s ok the kill Jews”, then it is ok to kill Jews.

    - and –

    Being “loving, compassionate, kind and empathetic” doesn’t mean you just agree with whatever people decide they want. It’s stupid twisting of Christian teaching used to bash conservatives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Murray “Explain your idea of what an oxymoron means”

    A retarded bullock?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. nasska (10,696 comments) says:

    Before Shunda self detonates at the thought of gay men mismanaging their intestines it may be worth considering that at least 50% of couples considering gay adoptions will be lesbian couples.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. iMP (2,248 comments) says:

    Yes, but simon you miss the point. Advocates are arguing a change in our adoption law so that people who define themselves as in a same-sex relationship can be treated the same as “fathers” and “mothers” BECAUSE they are in a same-sex relationship. I’m saying, this is not sufficient criteria to change law or redefine access to anything (let alone parenting).

    The focus is on their sexual relationship, and culture/law/societal structures being changed/warped/redefined around their sub-cultural milieu. The real statement is: we want same-sex defined as the same as everything else, which it patently is not. It’s like saying…

    “I want access to Superannuation on the basis that I live in Linwood, and as a 16 year old I am being discriminated against.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. iMP (2,248 comments) says:

    …and fer the record.
    OXYMORON: figure of speech which is apparently contradictory, as in ACT policy which states…

    i) we oppose “discrimination” against gays being able to adopt
    ii) but adoption should not be determined on the basis of sexual orientation.

    Head explodes.

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

    @simonway

    In response to your point, obviously adoption reform hasn’t been important enough to get on the political radar so you don’t see it coming up at Parliament or much in the political sphere. There is however a general current that believes that if adoption was opened up to more men and women who are capable of raising children, then the decision to abort a child because it might not have parents equipped to raise it (an erroneous belief in my view) is less likely to be made by a woman worried about raising a child alone. This worries the pro-choicers.

    (the reason it might come onto the radar is that gay people want it for themselves, not out of some popular desire for reform)

    To answer you second point, I’m not against the reform of adoption laws because hopefully it would lead to more children not being aborted and more families having the joy of raising children. Though I don’t support gay adoption (in case it wasn’t obvious).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Grendel (959 comments) says:

    other than the error Rouppe highlighted, this is one of the few areas where the greens show themselves to be a) actually socially liberal, and b) not trying to give one group equal rights without taking rights from another group.

    So that makes 3 policies of theirs that make sense (tax free threshold, legalise drugs and their comments on marriage), its just a pity its so well counter balanced by people who think we need to move beyond a system of of one person – one vote but instead give all the power to people who are descended from those who were here 2 centuries ago.

    of course their occasional outburst of being socially liberal is also ruined by their authoritarian practices and their complete economic illiteracy (we really need national standards on economics for all politicians)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Grendel (959 comments) says:

    err EWS, i am pro choice but would much rather we had a robust and simple adoption set up (for any good couple, gay or otherwise) to reduce the number of abortions in NZ.

    i struggle to think of many pro choice people who want less access to alternatives. it would only be if adoption was forced on anyone that it would be of concern.

    i think that most pro choice people see abortion as a necessary evil, not the ideal, but it needs to be an option. but if other options are there, and people can, by choice use them instead of abortion, all the better.

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

    A good friend of mine has a sister who is lesbian and she is raising her 3 year old boy together with her partner. They are both nice people and seem to have a stable caring relationship. Good on them. The interesting observation by my friend is that the boy craves male attention and interaction, and even the mother worries that he’s not getting the male attention he ‘should’ be. What I find incredible is that even the mother acknowledge that he “should” be getting male interaction for a normal upbringing. Do we not see the incongruity here?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Andrei (2,506 comments) says:

    It is not discrimination to not allow Gays to adopt, that is newspeak as is Pete Georges use of the word PARTNER to describe his WIFE.

    Fact: men and women are not interchangeable, regardless of the blather, and it takes one of each to create a child and for a child to grow up and establish a healthy life giving relationship of his/her own it requires adult role models of each gender in his/her formative years.

    The prisons are full of those who did not have this for one reason or another as is well known and documented.

    Still pandering to a noisy minority – the majority of whom have no interest in either marrying nor raising children is par for the course.

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

    @Grendel
    Abortion: “a necessary evil”. What a bullshit excuse for killing 18,000 New Zealanders every year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Pete George (22,868 comments) says:

    EWS – it’s not uncommon in hetero families for the male to be away at work most of the time and therefore they hardly see their kids – is this a normal enough upbringing?

    There’s hetero families where the father isn’t interested in their kids, is this a normal upbringing?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. mikenmild (10,766 comments) says:

    Those claiming it takes a man and a woman to raise a child properly will logically be advocating also that children be removed from any sole parent – widow, widower, divorced, abandoned, regardless of sexuality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. adze (1,873 comments) says:

    Scott Chris – I take it you’ve never had a blow job? The mouth being “designed” for eating and speech, of course.

    Imp – I see no contradiction with those two act positions. They’re complementary in fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. toad (3,670 comments) says:

    @Shunda barunda 10:58 am

    What the hell does anal sex have to do with this debate? It is about discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, not about particular sexual practices.

    Anyway, a not insignificant proportion of straight couples engage in anal sex, and a not insignificant proportion of gay male couples don’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. iMP (2,248 comments) says:

    There is a brilliant HUGE billboard on the inner city highway in Chch that reads
    BEER, THE WAY IT TASTED BEFORE LESBIANS WERE INVENTED. Lol.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. James Stephenson (2,040 comments) says:

    Pete, that’s a nonsense argument. Fact: there are many more couples looking to adopt than children available to be adopted, what is the problem with the ability to provide male and female role-models being a significant ranking criteria?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. gump (1,491 comments) says:

    @EWS

    Abortion is unfortunate but necessary.

    This isn’t an excuse. It is the simple reality.

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

    East Wellington Superhero (357) Says:

    October 6th, 2011 at 11:36 am
    @Grendel
    Abortion: “a necessary evil”. What a bullshit excuse for killing 18,000 New Zealanders every year.

    Here we go again – quoted from previous threads here on KB:

    Strong opponents of abortion are almost all deeply religious. The sincere supporters of abortion, whether personally religious or not, are likely to follow a non-religious, consequentialist moral philosophy, perhaps invoking Jeremy Bentham’s question, ‘Can they suffer?’ Paul Hill and Michael Bray saw no moral difference between killing an embryo and killing a doctor except that the embryo was, to them, a blamelessly innocent ‘baby’. The consequentialist sees all the difference in the world. An early embryo has the sentience, as well as the semblance, of a tadpole. A doctor is a grown-up conscious being with hopes, loves, aspirations, fears, a massive store of humane knowledge, the capacity for deep emotion, very probably a devastated widow and orphaned children, perhaps elderly parents who dote on him.

    Paul Hill caused real, deep, lasting suffering, to beings with nervous systems capable of suffering. His doctor victim did no such thing. Early embryos that have no nervous system most certainly do not suffer. And if late-aborted embryos with nervous systems suffer – though all suffering is deplorable – it is not because they are human that they suffer. There is no general reason to suppose that human embryos at any age suffer more than cow or sheep embryos at the same developmental stage. And there is every reason to suppose that all embryos, whether human or not, suffer far less than adult cows or sheep in a slaughterhouse, especially a ritual slaughterhouse where, for religious reasons, they must be fully conscious when their throats are ceremonially cut.

    Suffering is hard to measure, and the details might be disputed. But that doesn’t affect my main point, which concerns the difference between secular consequentialist and religiously absolute moral philosophies. One school of thought cares about whether embryos can suffer. The other cares about whether they are human. Religious moralists can be heard debating questions like, ‘When does the developing embryo become a person – a human being?’ Secular moralists are more likely to ask, ‘Never mind whether it is human, (what does that even mean for a little cluster of cells?); at what age does any developing embryo, of any species, become capable of suffering?’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. iMP (2,248 comments) says:

    Toad, define “same-sex orientation” without referring to sex. Do you mean joint-taste in curtain design?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. James Stephenson (2,040 comments) says:

    Yet another nonsense argument from Miken.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Pete George (22,868 comments) says:

    that is newspeak as is Pete Georges use of the word PARTNER to describe his WIFE.

    What? I’d bet that men had partners long before they had wives.

    I chose a partner and we made a serious long term commitment to each other on a personal level, and then we chose to get married on a personal, legal, family and social level.

    Partner highlights a more equal relationship than the old fashioned “wife” (a term I still use as well).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. iMP (2,248 comments) says:

    The equivalent of Ashburton is aborted in NZ every year. How many Dan Carter’s in there, ya think?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    When you stick male genitalia up a man’s anus, it does not make a baby. But hey, let’s let two men adopt children so we can pretend it’s all normal.

    Surely it’s time to act to prevent infertile heterosexual couples from adopting for the same reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. mikenmild (10,766 comments) says:

    James
    If you are so concerned to ensure children are brought up by a man and a woman, why should that only apply to children who are adopted?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Fletch (6,032 comments) says:

    Scott Chris – I take it you’ve never had a blow job? The mouth being “designed” for eating and speech, of course.

    Yes, but no one is advocating that blow jobs should be considered a normal and natural way to have sexual intercourse (by that I mean coitus) and that anyone who doesn’t agree is guilty of discrimination.

    The simple fact is, is that two men or two women can’t have sexual intercourse – it’s a fact. They can stimulate each other to orgasm, but that isn’t sex (coitus). As some have pointed out above, the anus is not a sexual organ, it’s the sewer line of the body.

    It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to see that male/female coupling (regardless of religion or societal conformity) is the natural order of things. It just works. A unit/bond is formed and children are created.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. iMP (2,248 comments) says:

    Are gay activists glad their parents were heterosexual?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. nasska (10,696 comments) says:

    adze

    …”ii) but adoption should not be determined on the basis of sexual orientation.”…

    Seems poorly worded & open to misinterpretation….to be less ambiguous it would have been better to have read, “but ‘suitability for’ adoption should…..”

    Unless the statement was designed with vagueness in mind?

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

    Fletch (2,051) Says:

    It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to see that male/female coupling (regardless of religion or societal conformity) is the natural order of things.

    Homosexuality is practiced in over 400 different species. Homophobia is practiced in only one. What does that say about what is ‘natural’?

    Do you think a disabled couple have the right to marry? Obviously their disabilities aren’t ‘natural’ – but does that give you the right to judge them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    Note the level of spin:

    What I find interesting is that Labour’s answer doesn’t in fact answer the question. They say the Act is discriminatory but don’t specifically say they will allow same sex adoptions. They just say it should be modernised and adopted.

    Compared to:

    National won’t commit either way.

    Also:

    Again, no specific commitment at all. Both times they avoid the question.

    Compared to:

    Of course on an issue such as this, most MPs will have a conscience vote regardless of party.

    Good spotting, Courage Wolf.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. adze (1,873 comments) says:

    Nasska
    The way I interpreted the two positions was:
    - sexual orientation is irrelevant in terms of one’s fitness to adopt
    - we should not favor one sexual orientation over another, when considering candidates for adoption

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

    My view is that people should be able to marry and adopt regardless of their sexual orientation, the only requirement being that for adoption that the parents meet the required criteria for providing a safe enviroment for the children.
    The state should get out of dictating what people can or can not do, the world has moved on, and the judeo christian attitude to marraige and adoption is no longer relevant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Chthoniid (2,029 comments) says:

    I love the way the very people who insist that humans are a special creation separate from nature, are often the same ones insisting that human behaviours they disapprove of are unnatural.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Andrei (2,506 comments) says:

    I’d bet that men had partners long before they had wives.

    Men used to capture women to bear their children – still frequently do in the Caucasus.

    The idea of marriage is to make it a mutual decision which is why in Church Marriage a very important feature is the priest asking both parties that they are consenting of their own free will.

    In truth my friend the man and the woman in a marriage are not “equal” but complimentary this being because women have a womb to carry the baby and breasts to feed it while men don’t – so the man provides for the woman while she carries and nurtures their child.

    I know modern liberals detest this but that is the way it is, like it or not and no amount of fiddling with language can change that.

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

    The equivalent of Ashburton is aborted in NZ every year.

    As much as I agree with elective abortion, I don’t think we should be encouraging it with statements such as that.

    I’m not sure why the Christians and Muslims want to control what other people do so much. Can’t you guys just leave the law alone? Only other crazy religios agree with you, and it always boils down to this imaginary God fellow you go on about. If you want to argue, don’t bring your bearded fairy along to assist.

    Of course gays should be able to adopt, but in an ideal world though every child would be wanted. We should be encouraging some of the shit breeders in the country to get terminations. Better to get rid of a bunch of unthinking cells in the womb, than allow it to become yet another unloved, abused and costly mouth to feed, growing to a pair of hands to handcuff.

    But better it go to a pair of rich gay guys, or Labour-voting lezzies, than to be brought up in an abusive home by a 15 year old smoker (or even worse, by a fundamentalist Christian).

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

    “Anyway, a not insignificant proportion of straight couples engage in anal sex, and a not insignificant proportion of gay male couples don’t.”

    A journal published in 1979 by two gay medical researchers Karla Jay & Allen Young called “The Gay Report” was perhaps the most candid and comprehensive study of contemporary gay male behavior ever conducted. They found:

    Around 99% of homosexual males engage in oral sex; 91% engage in anal sex; 82% engage in “rimming”, touching the anus of one’s partner with one’s tongue and inserting the tongue into the anus; 22% engage in “fisting”, inserting one’s fist into the rectum of the partner; 23% engage in “golden showers”, urinating on each other; 4% engage in “scat”, the eating of feces, and in “mud rolling”, rolling on the floor where feces have been deposited.

    Male homosexuals are merely sexual hedonists. They seek sexual gratification at any time by any means possible in order to satisfy their erotic desires and are as a result in general, highly promiscuous. Gay PR men Marshall Kirk & Hunter Masden whose groundbreaking book “After The Ball” published in the late ’80′s was quite specific on why male homosexuals can’t get over their promiscuity:

    Gay men aren’t very good at having and holding lovers…(because) gay men tire of their partners (sexually) more rapidly than straight men.” And according to them, the average homosexual male first “seeks (sexual) novelty in partners, rather than practices, and becomes massively promiscuous; (but) eventually, all bodies become boring, and only new practices will thrill. “The cheating ratio of ‘married’ [committed] gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%.” Source: Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen,” After the Ball,” (NY: Doubleday, 1989) pp. 304-320.

    In other words, male homosexuals seek novelty in the number of conquests and as a result become highly promiscuous; it’s only when they are older and jaded that the thought of new fresh bodies no longer turn them on and the quest is on for increasingly deviant sexual practices.

    Gay marriage is a fraud and homosexuals should never be able to adopt children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Chuck Bird (4,688 comments) says:

    I would like to know if homosexual adoption is ACT policy. I suspect it may not be and only taken from a pamphlet for Family First where some party leaders responded with their personal view on family issues.

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

    Andrei (1,047) Says:

    The idea of marriage is to make it a mutual decision which is why in Church Marriage a very important feature is the priest asking both parties that they are consenting of their own free will.

    I know modern liberals detest this but that is the way it is, like it or not and no amount of fiddling with language can change that.

    Free will? Surely you’re not referring to the God of the Bible.

    Nuclear family – man and woman – Genesis 2:24 – wives subordinate to their husbands, interfaith marriages forbidden, marriages generally arranged not based on romantic love, bride who could not prove her virginity was stoned to death.

    Man and wives and concubines – Abraham (2 concubines), Gideon (1), Nahor (1), Jacob (1), Eliphaz (1), Gideon again (several), Caleb (2), Manassah (1), Solomon (300), Belshazzar (several).

    Man and woman and woman’s property – Genesis 16 – man could acquire his wife’s property including her slaves.

    Man and woman and woman and woman (polygamy) – Lamech (2 wives), Esau (3), Jacob (2), Ashur (2), Gideon (several), Elkanah (2), David (dozens), Solomon (700), Rehaboam (3), Abijah (14).

    Man and brother’s widow – Genesis 38:6-10 – widow who had not borne a son required to marry her brother in law, must submit sexually to her new husband.

    Rapist and his victim – Deuteronomy 22:28, 29 – virgin who is raped must marry her rapist, rapist must pay victim’s father 50 pieces of silver for property loss.

    Male soldier and prisoner of war – Numbers 31, Deuteronomy 21 – under Moses’ command, Israelites kill every Midianite man, woman and child, save for the virgins who are taken as spoils or war, virgins must submit sexually to their new owners.

    Male slave and female slave – Exodus 21:4 – slave owner could assign female slaves to his male slaves, female slaves must submit sexually to their new husbands.

    I know modern Christian apologists detest this but that is the way it is like it or not and no amount of fiddling with language can change that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    adze

    Re blow jobs…. not all that keen to be honest. Don’t like the feel of teeth, or the submissive pose. (Amanda Knox just popped into my head for some reason…) If I had my way, it would all be over in 2 minutes, then down the road for a pizza. :P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    I love the way the very people who insist that humans are a special creation separate from nature, are often the same ones insisting that human behaviours they disapprove of are unnatural.

    What?
    That makes no damned sense, you sound even more confused than they are!

    Ok Chthoniid, lets look at ‘nature’ shall we.

    Yes, homosexuality exists in ‘nature’ with other animals, but is that seriously of any bearing on this argument at all?

    Lets look at what else ‘exists’ in nature.

    Pack rape
    Male chauvinism (for example, male Tui/Bell birds forcing females to eat bugs while they take the nectar)
    Territorial fighting.
    Strong prejudice amongst animals of the same species with deformities or colouration differences (often leading to death).
    Inter species prejudice.
    Devouring a mate after copulation.
    Killing the young of a mate not genetically related.

    The left wing progressive morons love to talk about gay penguins and camp ssssswans as evidence of ‘normality’ yet there are plenty of ‘normal’ animal behaviours that they conveniently ignore and are appalled by in humans.

    Stupid argument, if you promote acting like animals as the future of ‘social progression’ then you are stupider than even the young earth creationists.

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

    Shunda barunda (1,949) Says:

    Stupid argument, if you promote acting like animals as the future of ‘social progression’ then you are stupider than even the young earth creationists.

    So you don’t believe that God created the world in six days? Good to know. I hope you also don’t believe in talking snakes, rising from the dead, some guy building a boat and fitting every animal in the world on it, humans being made from a pile of dirt and a rib, etc.

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

    This is a great thread. If I ever need to remind myself or anyone who is interested in finding out more about Christianity I’ll simply direct them here to see what the love and neighbourliness of Christianity is all about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. nasska (10,696 comments) says:

    adze

    I suspect your interpretation is the correct one but since we only seem to get one chance every three years to find out where parties stand on such issues it would be great if they could go to the trouble of explaining their policies in clear terms where we are not left to fill in the gaps.

    With a liberal Brash & a conservative Banks in charge ACT need to give us decisive statements of where they stand. Their next three years are going to be full of compromise & the voters should not pay the price.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. James Stephenson (2,040 comments) says:

    If you are so concerned to ensure children are brought up by a man and a woman, why should that only apply to children who are adopted?

    On the general principle that one should try to control what one can control and given that there is an oversupply of prospective adopters I think the ability to provide male and female role-models should be a selection criteria.

    The suggestion that striving for an ideal when looking at adoptive couples means one should look to remove children from their natural parent is just stupid. I would however strongly encourage any single mum to get involved with that Big Buddy program…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Chthoniid (2,029 comments) says:

    @Shunda barunda

    Why? I’m not the one advocating that the metric of whether an act is correct or not, is whether it is natural or not.

    That’s the god-botherer’s argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “When you stick male genitalia up a man’s anus, it does not make a baby. But hey, let’s let two men adopt children so we can pretend it’s all normal.”

    Exactly right and well said.

    But why be surprised? Liberals love killing babies by the millions through abortion. They want to kill off the elderly through euthanasia. They think torturing babies is a lifestyle choice and a matter of opinion as to whether its right or wrong.

    One more sick perversion is really just par for the course.

    The only thing I’m surprised about is the so-called “rainbow” allaince of perverts didin’t follow their brethren in Canada and Europe and call for the criminalisation of thought crimes and dissent.

    Mabey their just waiting for Grant Robertson to be PM, then they can really get started on turning NZ in to a pervert police state.

    Liberalism is a disease. Traditionalism is the cure.

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

    Lee01 (1,191) Says:

    But why be surprised? Liberals love killing babies by the millions through abortion. They want to kill off the elderly through euthanasia. They think torturing babies is a lifestyle choice and a matter of opinion as to whether its right or wrong.

    You’re right, killing babies is by far my favourite hobby, with killing the elderly coming a close second. Torturing babies should be the national sport and those who don’t enjoy it can watch rugby.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Chthoniid (2,029 comments) says:

    Now now, killing babies can’t be wrong otherwise why would Yaweh do it? You know, the Egyptian first-born, the Amalekite sucklings, presumably one or 2 in that global flood thing…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Suffer the Children: Why gay adoption is wrong.

    “Careful studies show that pedophilia is far more common among homosexuals than heterosexuals.
    The greater absolute number of heterosexual cases reflects the fact that heterosexual males
    outnumber homosexual males by approximately thirty-six to one. Heterosexual child molestation
    cases outnumber homosexual cases by only eleven to one, implying that pedophilia is more than
    three times more common among homosexuals.

    What is clearer, and needs to be brought to the fore—with some urgency—is that the literature of the gay
    subculture contains an alarming frequency of open references to pedophilia and child molestation. The
    Journal of Homosexuality (whose editor, John deCecco, also sits on the editorial board of the pedophilia
    advocacy journal Paedika) ran a double issue in 1990 that was devoted entirely to “male intergenerational intimacy.”

    http://www.equip.org/PDF/JAH050.pdf

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

    Lee01 (1,194) Says:

    “Careful studies show that pedophilia is far more common among homosexuals than heterosexuals.”

    What about how pedophilia is more common amongst priests/pastors/whatever-Graham-Capill’s-title-was more than say lawyers (or some other arbitrary occupation)? Should we make it so that priests cannot adopt but lawyers can.

    What about the fact that 93% of the prison population in the US identify themselves as Christian? Shall we make it that Christians cannot adopt, given that there are more Christian criminals than non-Christian?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Lee

    Actually God used to like killing babies. You’d well know the story of Abraham and Isaac:

    At some point in Isaac’s youth, Abraham was commanded by God to offer his son up as a sacrifice in the land of Moriah.

    Luckily, just as Ibrahim was about to stab his son, God changed his mind, and decided that he was bored with child sacrifices, and would really rather Abraham and his wives and kids go smite some other tribe.

    _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Or, perhaps Abraham made the God bit up, and simply decided that human sacrifice was a barbaric tradition. (luckily for traditionalist kids eh?)

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

    @ Courage Wolf

    That comment about the incidence of Paedophilia by religious ministers is not true. You’re either fabricating it or repeating someone else’s fibs. The only time a study was done on this – that I am aware of – was in Chicago around the time was getting pilloried on the issue. It found that the incidence was lower (though not statistically lower) that other people in society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Fletch (6,032 comments) says:

    EWS, correct. In fact the US Dept of Education commissioned a report by Carol Shakeshaft (called the Shakeshaft Report), that was published in 2004.

    Shakeshaft said that “… the physical sexual abuse of students in [public] schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by [Catholic] priests.” She estimated that about 290,000 students were victimized between 1991 and 2000.

    Much criticism has been made of Church authorities moving priests on to other diocese and not reporting them, but that is exactly what secular authorities did also. –

    In 1994, Shakeshaft published a report based on a four-year study of 225 sexual abuse complaints—184 in New York State and 41 in other states—against teachers made to federal authorities from 1990 to 1994.[2] She found that “All of the accused admitted sexual abuse of a student, but none of the abusers was reported to the authorities, and only 1 percent lost their license to teach. Only 35 percent suffered negative consequences of any kind, and 39 percent chose to leave their school district, most with positive recommendations. Some were even given an early retirement package.”

    And yes, a greater percentage of offending, be it by priest or teacher, is homosexual in nature – ie, men abusing boys.
    But the media won’t touch that sacred cow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Shunda Barunda – “….the anus….(that is clearly designed/evolved for shitting).”

    Luckily the penis is multi-purpose, or I wouldn’t know if I was coming or going. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Why? I’m not the one advocating that the metric of whether an act is correct or not, is whether it is natural or not.

    That’s the god-botherer’s argument.

    No Chthoniid, it has nothing to do with the “God botherer’s” at all, it has everything to do with us as an intelligent species being different to the rest of the animal kingdom and you know it.

    While Christians often flail randomly in discussions like this, it doesn’t remove the realities of the situation, humans clearly are different from the rest of the animal kingdom, and one has to come to that conclusion regardless of whether one believes in God, evolution, or whatever.

    So, as it turns out, simply claiming that homosexuality is “natural” is not good enough, you need to explain (as an evolutionist) how it is beneficial otherwise pack rape, male chauvinism, territorial fighting, and murder of genetically unrelated children are just as natural and just as defensible with this utterly stupid logic.

    But hey, perhaps this is just another instance of when political correctness trumps science?.

    All hail the scientific method! (mostly) ;)

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

    @ Fletch

    Well there you go. Didn’t know that. Obviously, the rate for priests should be zero, considering the authority they wield and the message they bring. But It’d be nice to see some recalibrating of those who show prejudice to the Church.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Fletch – “But the media won’t touch that sacred cow.”

    The majority of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by men in heterosexual relationships and with their own daughters as victims.
    A heterosexual partnership is hardly guarantee against sexual crime.

    On the other hand, homosexual child abuse is most likely perpetrated by homosexuals. ~go figure~

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    This is a great thread. If I ever need to remind myself or anyone who is interested in finding out more about Christianity I’ll simply direct them here to see what the love and neighbourliness of Christianity is all about.

    It has nothing to do with Christianity, explain how homosexuality is beneficial to our species in an evolutionary context, go on, I dare you.

    We should look after our ‘anomalies’ I absolutely believe that, but what is being advocated for here is something very, very different.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. adze (1,873 comments) says:

    Shunda
    Masturbation is also a cross-species phenomenon, does it have an evolutonary purpose?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    The majority of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by men in heterosexual relationships and with their own daughters as victims.

    But that also happens in the animal kingdom Scott, how did you come to the conclusion that it is wrong for our species?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Shunda
    Masturbation is also a cross-species phenomenon, does it have an evolutonary purpose?

    Yes, it most likely does, it is well understood that regular ejaculations are important for male genital health in humans, I have no knowledge of the (small number) of other species that also engage in this behaviour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Pete George (22,868 comments) says:

    Fortunately laws relating to homosexuals aren’t decided by the number of moths flocking to the gay blog lights.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Fletch (6,032 comments) says:

    And to those who say re: endorsing or promoting homosexual relationships, ‘what is the harm’?, a simple study of newspaper obituaries in Denmark and Norway (where homosexual marriage has been lawful the longest), shows that those in homosexual ‘marriages’ live on average 24 years less than those in heterosexual marriages. That is a worse mortality rate than smoking, and yet we promote the homosexual lifestyle to children in schools as being natural and a viable alternative lifestyle.

    According to the Cameron research, married gays and lesbians lived 24 fewer years than their conventionally married counterparts.

    In Denmark, the country with the longest history of gay marriage, for 1990-2002, married heterosexual men died at a median age of 74yrs., while the 561 partnered gays died at an average age of 51.

    In Norway, married heterosexual men died at an average age of 77 and the 31 gays at 52 yrs. In Denmark, married women died at an average age of 78 yrs. compared to 56 yrs. for the 91 lesbians. In Norway, women married to men died at an average age of 81. v. 56 for the 6 lesbians.

    “The consistency of reduced lifespan for those engaging in homosexuality is significant,” said Dr. Cameron. “The same pattern of early death turned up whether we looked at obituaries in the U.S. or deaths in marriage. Given the greatly reduced lifespan for homosexuals, school children should be strongly and consistently warned about the dangers of homosexuality even more so than smoking. Those school districts which are introducing pro-gay curricula need to rethink their priorities.”

    Paul Cameron, Ph.D. Kirk Cameron, Ph.D., presented “Federal Distortion of The Homosexual Footprint.” Paul Cameron, a reviewer for the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal, and the Postgraduate Medical Journal, has published over 40 scientific articles on homosexuality. The EPA, is the oldest regional Psychological Association in the United States. At its Philadelphia convention members presented the latest advances in scientific work to colleagues.

    LINK to study in PDF form.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. adze (1,873 comments) says:

    What about women?

    And yep, you need only search on YouTube to see examples in the animal kingdom…

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

    @Fletch

    Interesting. What brings down the average? What are they dying of? Does anything confound it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Pete George (22,868 comments) says:

    Fletch, to mean anything you need to compare with the average age of death of gays not living in marriage type relationships – is their life expectancy better or worse than marriage relationship gays?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. somewhatthoughtful (452 comments) says:

    East Wellington Superhero, what I about when I stick my male genetalia into a willing woman’s Anus or Oral cavity? It doesn’t make a baby but feels DAMN good. You ought to try it some time, might help your world view a bit.

    Hell I’m convinced that the whole idea that sex should === babies is just a bunch of dumb early christians inventing contraception.

    Might go kill some unborn children now actually….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    It has nothing to do with Christianity, explain how homosexuality is beneficial to our species in an evolutionary context, go on, I dare you.

    Social Darwinism, the view that the facts of our evolutionary history translate into moral imperatives, is as fallacious today as it was just after Darwin’s death. We behave in all kinds of ways that do not encourage the propagation of our genes – including assisting sufferers of congenital diseases to live, developing vaccines rather than selecting for immunities, etc.

    We do those things because we have values other than genetic propagation informing our decisions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. joe90 (273 comments) says:

    Still peddling the Cameron lies Fletch.

    Cameron’s colleagues have condemned him repeatedly. In 1983, he was thrown out of the American Psychological Association for ethical violations. In 1984, the Nebraska Psychological Association disassociated itself from Cameron’s statements about sexuality. In 1985, the American Sociological Association adopted a resolution saying Cameron “has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality” and “repeatedly campaigned for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men”; the following year, the same group formally condemned Cameron for that misrepresentation of research.

    Despite all this — and the fact that Cameron’s propaganda is widely known to be false or misleading — many groups have continued to use his claims, though often without citing their source. They include the American Family Association, Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, Concerned Women for America, Coral Ridge Ministries, the Family Research Council (see above for all five) and, until recently, the Illinois Family Institute.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Fletch (6,032 comments) says:

    EWS, been a while since I read the whole report, but I’m sure it is lifestyle related in some way. They do say re: gay marriage –

    ‘Gay marriage,’ unlike conventional man-woman marriage, appears to have no effect on
    the longevity of those who engage in homosexuality. As such, it is of no benefit to allow
    those who are voluntarily non-productive (that is, who don’t bear and raise children) to
    share the benefits of marriage with the productive. That such an attitude is already
    bearing destructive fruit is evident in that men and woman less frequently aspire to
    marriage in favor of cohabitation, and an increasing share of children are born outside of
    marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. somewhatthoughtful (452 comments) says:

    So, as it turns out, simply claiming that homosexuality is “natural” is not good enough, you need to explain (as an evolutionist) how it is beneficial otherwise pack rape, male chauvinism, territorial fighting, and murder of genetically unrelated children are just as natural and just as defensible with this utterly stupid logic.

    Beneficial? Easy, because, as you say, we are higher beings with highly enlightened pleasure sensors. I’m yet to engage in any homosexual activity, but my gay friends say it feels damn good, so that’s your benefit right there (I could tell you where to stick it, but, well, you know…)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    A quick debunking of Paul Cameron’s “Gays Die Young” “study”: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,018.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Fletch (6,032 comments) says:

    Joe90, of course he was thrown out. He goes against the liberal group-think.
    The results though, speak for themselves. Read the PDF.

    Checking birth/death records and obituaries to find out the ages of when those in homosexual ‘marriages’ died is pretty straight forward, I would have thought. Hard to fudge that data.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Chthoniid (2,029 comments) says:

    Kin-selection mechanisms, in line with the work initiated by Hamilton in the 1960s, would seem to suffice to account for human homosexual behaviour. Especially in light of it being linked to family size.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    It doesn’t matter if there are evolutionary explanations for homosexuality or not. Our culture values liberty, equality before the law, and freedom from religious views being forced on people by the state. If you don’t believe homosexual couples should adopt, don’t marry another person of the same sex and then adopt a child.

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

    @ Lee01.

    Careful, making references to the darker side of the homosexual subculture is forbidden in today’s “liberal”, hedonistic age. But you’re right. Recently a British GP was sacked by the Home Office from his position on the Drug Abuse Advisory Council for stating that homosexuals are overrepresented in child-sex cases . . but it was the very same Home Office who earlier had produced the report stating that approximately 20 to 33 per cent of child sexual abuse is homosexual in nature.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Scott Chris

    “At some point in Isaac’s youth, Abraham was commanded by God to offer his son up as a sacrifice ”

    Did you note that he was commanded not to go through with it, but to sacrifice an animal instead?

    Secular scholars have shown that the story is a polemic AGAINST child sacrifice, which was common in the day. The Ancient Hebrews, following the Torah were the only civilisation NOT to engage in ritual child sacrifice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Courage Wolf,

    “What about how pedophilia is more common amongst priests/pastors/”

    Sorry, but statistically its not. As Fletch shows children are far more likely to be abused in secular schools and institutions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull -”We do those things because we have values other than genetic propagation informing our decisions.”

    Seems to me that compassion is an evolved trait, as this would strengthen the family group and is advantageous in the amicable settling of disputes of self interest – hence the truism “united we stand, divided we fall”.

    Would also explain psychopaths, who are apparently missing this trait. Identical twin studies seem to bear this theory out.

    I take it you are arguing from a more sociological basis?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Andrei (2,506 comments) says:

    Chthoniid – a hand-waving evolutionary explanation.

    Apart from anything else homosexuality is a modern idea and the behaviors associated with it manifested themselves differently in days past and do today in different cultures for that matter so “kin selection” wouldn’t have developed yet.

    In truth most people in the past married because that was expected of them and often they married the person that was chosen for them. And they got on with the job and had children regardless of what their supposed “sexuality was because this post modernistic concept hadn’t been invented yet.

    Life for them worked out pretty good for some of them them while for others not so – c’est la vie

    Various cultures have experimented with various family structures and ways of raising children – some work, some don’t and the societies that go for the ones that don’t work die out as many societies have.

    Societies for example that allow polygamy are by nature violent and oppressive to women – they have to be because if a man has multiple wives there are those who have none and they are pissed and to get there share they become violent and take it or come to grief in the process. We see this today in the modern world.

    Anyway Liberals are determined to introduce this novel idea of gay “marriage” and the raising of children by hedonists whose concept of “rights” is the freedom to engage in whatever sexual practice takes their fancy while not accepting the consequences of those choices, one of which is the lack of offspring resulting from those choices.

    Still big Government can wave its magic wand and make it all better by allowing sterile breeding pairs to take the children of the fecund and raise them according to their sterile and dead end morals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. mikenmild (10,766 comments) says:

    I think some of the commenters here need to be adopted by sympathetic gay friends.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    As I said on the GD thread I am reading Hans Herman-Hoppe, who is a Conservative Libertarian, and I’m increasingly swayed by his arguments.

    So I might allow that the State should not regulate what people do so long as they are not engaging in force or fraud, but until that extends to EVERYONE, Christians included, I reserve the right to be deeply suspicious of the intentions of the gay rights movement and its supporters.

    If gays want the freedom to adopt and “marry”, the I want the freedom to hire and fire anyone I want on any basis that I want, the freedom to teach my kids my values without interference, and the freedom to send them to schools that teach traditional values.

    In short, I will support the right of Gays to live how they want when they support the same for me and advocate for an end to Statist “human rights” laws and commisions.

    But I won’t hold my breath. As I have said, the gay rights movement and modern Liberalism are totalitarian Statist ideologies that fully intend to use the power of the state to mold people into their utterly abstract and unatural image.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Lee – “Secular scholars have shown that the story is a polemic AGAINST child sacrifice”

    Seems to me that the story of Abraham and Isaac is a description of the revolution of the child sacrifice meme or tradition, to one of lesser harm, or even benefit, ie that of sacrificing an animal.

    The pattern seems very clear from an anthropological perspective.

    Presumably, before Abraham’s time, child sacrifice was widely practiced, purportedly at the behest of a wrathful God. Yet somehow you can accommodate the idea of this God into your theology. Seems a hell of a stretch to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “Presumably, before Abraham’s time, child sacrifice was widely practiced, purportedly at the behest of a wrathful God.”

    Not at the behest of Yahweh. Child sacrifice in the ME was to a pagan fertility deity known as Baal. The Canaanites literally burnt babies on his alter. So there is no “stretch” involved here, your talking about a different religion.

    To advocate for another Frenchman called Rene, read ‘Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World’ by Rene Girad, who goes into the fact that the Hebrews, the Torah and the Bible as a whole were unique in the world for being opposed to all forms of human ritual sacrifice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. iMP (2,248 comments) says:

    ‘homosexuality is practised by 400 species in nature’ …are they the ones who also eat their own crap?
    Hardly a rationale for legislating.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Andrei (2,506 comments) says:

    ‘homosexuality is practised by 400 species in nature’

    That’s anthropomorphising and wishful thinking.

    Observe some aberrant animal behavior and align it to human sexuality even if it doesn’t actually involve sexual behavior eg two male or female penguins nesting

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Pete George (22,868 comments) says:

    Trying to dictate what sort of relationships other people should or shouldn’t have is a bit like dwarves at a nudist colony – always getting their nose in other people’s business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Andrei (1,050) Says:
    October 6th, 2011 at 11:35 am

    “Fact: men and women are not interchangeable, regardless of the blather, and it takes one of each to create a child and for a child to grow up and establish a healthy life giving relationship of his/her own it requires adult role models of each gender in his/her formative years.”

    Rubbish. Plenty of children grow up just fine with gay parents or solo parents.

    “The prisons are full of those who did not have this for one reason or another as is well known and documented.”

    Actually plenty of prisoners are from two parent households and certainly the majority of prisoners were not raised by homosexual couples.

    It is my understanding that there is a disproportionate amount of prisoners from single parent households, but should this be unexpected? The worst families are often dysfunctional where the father abuses the mother then leaves the mother to live on welfare and raise the children alone. How would you expect the child to turn out? On the other hand what if a father goes to war and dies to leave his wife to raise the child alone. Would you expect the child to turn out bad?

    So it’s not necessarily the case that a single parent cannot raise a child properly, rather it’s the case that among the population of single parents there’s likely to be a disproportionate amount of dysfunctional people who raise dysfunctional children.

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

    “What about how pedophilia is more common amongst priests/pastors/”

    Strictly speaking, the priests were engaging in ephebophillia. Of the abuse cases in the Catholic church that were of a sexual nature, the vast majority were homosexual attractions to post-pubescent boys not younger children.

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

    iMP (324) Says:

    October 6th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
    ‘homosexuality is practised by 400 species in nature’ …are they the ones who also eat their own crap?
    Hardly a rationale for legislating.

    If you had read the original context, you would see that it was in response to Fletch’s original claim as to what is in the ‘natural order of things’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Chuck Bird (4,688 comments) says:

    “Strictly speaking, the priests were engaging in ephebophillia. Of the abuse cases in the Catholic church that were of a sexual nature, the vast majority were homosexual attractions to post-pubescent boys not younger children.”

    Your point?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    Seems to me that compassion is an evolved trait, as this would strengthen the family group and is advantageous in the amicable settling of disputes of self interest – hence the truism “united we stand, divided we fall”.

    Would also explain psychopaths, who are apparently missing this trait. Identical twin studies seem to bear this theory out.

    I take it you are arguing from a more sociological basis?

    Scott,

    Certainly evolution can offer an explanation for why we possess particular desires/values/fears/behaviours, but the fact that these behaviours have their antecedence in evolutionary history does not provide them with justification. The facts of evolutionary history can explain the fact that we possess particular values today, but the facts of evolutionary history do not provide moral justification of those values. You can derive an is from an is, but not an ought from an is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    One theory as to how evolution can account for gays, is that they were considered not to be a rivals to the dominant males and so were seen as trustworthy to leave back at the cave with the women and kids to help protect them, thus preserving the tribe.

    Gave them plenty of scope to pass on their genes. After all, only purist gays won’t screw women. Can’t trust those sneaky gays, can you… or does that apply to all men.

    As for the gay women, well, they could get laid any time they felt clucky, or perhaps, more sinisterly, they were just raped.

    Ryan Sproull – “You can derive an is from an is, but not an ought from an is.”

    I agree. We made up ought.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Fletch (6,032 comments) says:

    There was a lot of hoo-haa a few years back when two male penguins got together at a zoo to hatch an egg. Of course, the Liberals don’t like to mention the end of the story where they broke up and one penguin took up with a female.

    New York City’s most famous gay penguin couple has split up.

    Even worse, one of them has taken up with a female penguin new to the Central Park Zoo (search), the New York Post reports.

    Silo and Roy, two male chinstrap penguins (search) native to the South Atlantic, made local headlines six years ago when they came out with their same-sex relationship.

    Since then, the pair have successfully hatched and raised an adopted chick — after trying to incubate a rock — and become role models for six other same-sex couples among penguins at the zoo.

    That all ended when Scrappy, a single female newly arrived from SeaWorld in San Diego, caught Silo’s eye.

    “Silo and Roy stopped spending as much time together or building a nest,” said John Rowden, curator of animals at the zoo.

    Silo promptly moved in with Scrappy, building a new nest with her. Zookeepers were at a loss to explain Silo’s sudden conversion.

    I think it goes without saying that it might not be anything to do with homosexuality at all. Maybe just a lack of another gender bird and some survival instinct.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    We do those things because we have values other than genetic propagation informing our decisions.

    No shit Ryan, which, by the way, was exactly my point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Beneficial? Easy, because, as you say, we are higher beings with highly enlightened pleasure sensors. I’m yet to engage in any homosexual activity, but my gay friends say it feels damn good, so that’s your benefit right there

    Oh ok, so everything that is a fleeting pleasure is good for our species? you really are in need of some extra thought on this issue aren’t you.

    (I could tell you where to stick it, but, well, you know…)

    Pricks like you have been telling honest folk like me where to stick it for a long time, it seems you get very upset when one dares to object, even when you (or anyone else on this thread) have yet to refute a single argument I have made.

    (waits for the quick “bigot” dismissal followed by disengagement)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Edit:

    Ryan Sproull – “You can derive an is from an is, but not an ought from an is.”

    I agree. We made up ought. But it is a reflection of our nature, a solution wrought by a conflation of necessity and our natural capability.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    No shit Ryan, which, by the way, was exactly my point.

    Sorry, I guess I was responding to whoever first started talking about whether or not homosexual behaviour was “natural” or “unnatural” as if it had a bearing on adoption rights.

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

    “Your point?” – that the term pedophilia as applied to those crooked clergy is largely incorrect.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    I agree. We made up ought. But it is a reflection of our nature, a solution wrought by a conflation of necessity and our natural capability.

    I was mainly addressing anyone who thought that “we’ve evolved to act this way” or “we’ve evolved to not act this way” carries some kind of moral weight.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Angus – to most it’s a trivial distinction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Fortunately laws relating to homosexuals aren’t decided by the number of moths flocking to the gay blog lights.

    No, they are decided by a group of intellectually dishonest smug social progressives that are full of “oughts” and “thou shalt nots” that are based in nothing other than their own prejudices masquerading as “social progression”.

    Like I sad, be nice to ‘anomalies’ but for goodness sake, don’t start confusing them as anything other than this, it’s not good for them and it’s not good for everyone else.

    It seems certain people are so keen on being seen as different except when they want something that belongs to someone else.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. RightNow (6,679 comments) says:

    I wonder how many animal species are monotheistic… and if that strengthens or weakens the case for monotheism in humans?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    “Like I sad, be nice to ‘anomalies’ but for goodness sake, don’t start confusing them as anything other than this, it’s not good for them and it’s not good for everyone else.”

    We are all “anomalies”. We all have traits that fall outside what is common and in this respect we are all, in one way or another, part of a minority.

    Homosexuals aren’t asking you to treat them as if they were something other than what they are, they are simply asking for equal protection of the law. When they cannot form a legally recognized union with the person they love, a legal framework designed to protect the interests of both parties as it does in other relationships, then they are not being given equal protection of the law.

    When the government says heterosexual couples can adopt but homosexual couples cannot adopt then they are being discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. Can such discrimination be justified? I do not see that it can. A child is perfectly capable of being raised healthy and proper by a homosexual couple as compared a heterosexual couple or a solo parent. Indeed I and many others who do not live in a bubble have witnessed this.

    The factors which tend to cause children to grow up dysfunctional have nothing *instrinsically* to do with whether their parents are gay or whether they have one or two parents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Andrei (2,506 comments) says:

    Actually Weihana children who grow up with both their biological parents do best in this world – it has been shown time after time this is so.

    Children who grow up in other environments even those adopted into good families do less well in general.

    Ergo social policies should re-inforce the traditional family structure not develop new and fanciful ones.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Chuck Bird (4,688 comments) says:

    “that the term pedophilia as applied to those crooked clergy is largely incorrect.”

    That probably applies to homosexuals in general. There is a different term for those who abuse 11 to 15 year olds. does it make any difference to the harm they do? Is a 13 your old boy who is diddled with be less harmed than a 9 year old?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull – “I was mainly addressing anyone who thought that “we’ve evolved to act this way” or “we’ve evolved to not act this way” carries some kind of moral weight.”

    Quite so. Was just engaging in conversation. I specialize in stating the obvious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Rightnow – “I wonder how many animal species are monotheistic…”

    Dogs maybe? Certainly not cats, who appear to be solipsistic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    Actually Weihana children who grow up with both their biological parents do best in this world – it has been shown time after time this is so.

    Children who grow up in other environments even those adopted into good families do less well in general.

    Ergo social policies should re-inforce the traditional family structure not develop new and fanciful ones.

    “Do better”? What happens when we learn that children who grow up in atheist environments “do better” than children who grow up in religious environments? When we learn that children who grow up with vegetarian diets “do better” than children who grow up eating meat? When we learn that children that children who grow up with multilingual parents “do better” than children who grow up in monolingual families?

    Plan your societies somewhere else, Comrade Andrei. Individual liberty and equality under the law = gay couples can adopt just as much as straight couples.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Who is more likely to respect society’s rules:

    A gay who feels a part of society?

    or

    A gay who is excluded from society?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    # Andrei (1,052) Says:
    October 6th, 2011 at 4:25 pm

    Actually Weihana children who grow up with both their biological parents do best in this world – it has been shown time after time this is so.

    Children who grow up in other environments even those adopted into good families do less well in general.

    Ergo social policies should re-inforce the traditional family structure not develop new and fanciful ones.

    ——————————

    But do you not stop to ask yourself why IN THE FIRST INSTANCE is a child being adopted into another family? The simple fact that a child is being adopted is an indicator that something has already gone wrong, whether the parents died in an accident or the child’s parents were abusers, or whether the child’s parents were young teenagers not prepared to deal with the challenges of parenting etc. etc.

    So yes I accept that adoption is not the preferred option but in many cases it is the only option. And disproportionate statistics with regards to such a group which is already handicapped by the circumstances that often surround adoption does not say anything about whether children can be raised properly by gay or solo parents.

    Moreover, statistics will show that there are a disproportionate amount of Maori children who grow up to be criminals as compared with others. Do we therefore discriminate against Maori parents?

    You really have to stop being so simplistic. If child welfare groups are relying on statistics to determine whether parents are suitable then they are failing the children. They have to look at the actual circumstances of each particular case to assess the real factors which cause dysfunction in the household. Being gay is not one of those factors.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Where are these excluded ‘gays’ Scott? homosexuals have (and do) occupy some of the highest positions in this fair land of ours, are you yet another turkey stuck in the 1950′s????

    Excluded from society, that must be how some Polynesian rugby players feel for not being able to wear their culture on their sleeves due to progressive f@ckwits.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    Where are these excluded ‘gays’ Scott? homosexuals have (and do) occupy some of the highest positions in this fair land of ours, are you yet another turkey stuck in the 1950′s????

    Yeah, jeez, how much equality do they want?!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda (1,957) Says:
    October 6th, 2011 at 4:54 pm

    Where are these excluded ‘gays’ Scott? homosexuals have (and do) occupy some of the highest positions in this fair land of ours, are you yet another turkey stuck in the 1950′s????

    ————————————-

    They are excluded from the right to adopt. That gays occupy important offices and notable positions does not justify such discrimination just as it wouldn’t be justified to exclude Maori parents from adoption on the basis that some Maori occupy important offices and notable positions in society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. KiwiGreg (3,181 comments) says:

    But don’t you see? If gays adopt they will turn the adopted kids gay. Just like heterosexual parents have heterosexual kids.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    The anglican Church is trying to solve/sidestep this issue (in their case – homosexual ministers – or openly practising homosexual ministers in a relationship and living together – usually on church proerty) by using something called a Covenant.

    Its not going down well.

    50 years ago our parents would have considered the iodea of not just legal homosexual practising, but now adopting, etc – as being simply unthinkable.

    Now there is a group in Europe wanting to have all restrictions on who you can marry removed – so that you can marry you first cousin or brother or sister or mother or father…!!

    They have a good arguement – they say that the only reason for the old rule was that the offspring would be genetically deficient. But now that there is free contraception and/or abortion that arguement doesnt hold up any more. Further, the various rules on marriage and relationships etc mean that in fact close relatives can be in virtual marriages.

    This group will get thru one day as sycphantic members of parliament will suck up for their votes – just as has happened with the homosexual situation.

    So you have to think into the future with this sort of stuff. Already it is legal in India to marry an animal – so what next might happen

    Its all very interesting breaking historical standards – but one needs to be careful what one wished for – these days youll probably get it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. chiz (1,119 comments) says:

    hunda:explain how homosexuality is beneficial to our species in an evolutionary context, go on, I dare you.

    Even under the simplifying assumption that homosexuality is due to a single gene, which I personally doubt, there have been at least 5 or 6 different models put forward in the scientific literature to explain what its benefit might be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. chiz (1,119 comments) says:

    Andrei:children who grow up with both their biological parents do best in this world – it has been shown time after time this is so.

    But the reasons for this have been disputed since there are a number of confounding factors such as income or genetics that migyht be at play.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Chuck Bird (4,688 comments) says:

    “So you have to think into the future with this sort of stuff. Already it is legal in India to marry an animal – so what next might happen”

    What is the sheep don’t mind? Oz cricketers would have a field day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    barry (631) Says:
    October 6th, 2011 at 5:24 pm

    Now there is a group in Europe wanting to have all restrictions on who you can marry removed – so that you can marry you first cousin or brother or sister or mother or father…!!

    They have a good arguement – they say that the only reason for the old rule was that the offspring would be genetically deficient. But now that there is free contraception and/or abortion that arguement doesnt hold up any more. Further, the various rules on marriage and relationships etc mean that in fact close relatives can be in virtual marriages.

    This group will get thru one day as sycphantic members of parliament will suck up for their votes – just as has happened with the homosexual situation.

    So you have to think into the future with this sort of stuff. Already it is legal in India to marry an animal – so what next might happen

    ————————–

    You missed the part where you explain why their argument for marrying cousins, brothers and sisters etc. doesn’t hold up or that it is necessary for the government to legislate against such activity since that seems to be what you are suggesting.

    I’m with Ron Paul. I support all voluntary relationships. If you want to marry your sister (why?!) then it ain’t none of my business and it’s not yours either. The thought grosses me out but so does a bunch of gay guys and a glory hole… or the thought of old people having sex… or the thought of obese people having sex… or the thought of John Key having sex.

    We shouldn’t legislate based on what people find disgusting, it has to be sensible and based on reason. Given that we have various means of contraception there does not appear to be any legitimate reason to legislate against relationships between people closely related.

    If it’s voluntary it’s none of my business and I would prefer it remained none of my business as I don’t want to know about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda – “are you yet another turkey stuck in the 1950′s????”

    Think of it this way. What if Shunda Barundas were barred from adopting kids or getting married. How respectful would you be of society’s rules and how included would you feel in a culture that upheld the very laws that excluded you from participating fully in all its social rituals?

    The point is, regardless of what your moral values may be, gays don’t see themselves as aberrant. Give em what they want, and they’ll pipe down for a change. Noisy buggers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Chuck Bird (4,688 comments) says:

    “Noisy buggers”

    Do you mean noisy buggerers?

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

    I disagree Scott.

    What do they want Scott?
    Acceptance by changing the law so they can legally be seen as the equivalent of hetero married (even partners).

    No, they will never be seen as that.
    Because deep down ordinary people do not equate homosexuality as normal but an aberration. (statistically 1% :-)

    They see mum and dad as normal (even partner who aren’t marries).
    and that is as it should be.

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

    Andrei (1,053) Says:
    October 6th, 2011 at 4:25 pm

    On the button.

    Isn’t it funny how with all the evidence for mom and pop, the bleaters keep pushing their barrow.
    shows it’s not logical either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Barry – “they say that the only reason for the old rule was that the offspring would be genetically deficient”

    You bring up a good point. With brother/sister marriage, I see no problem morally, provided there is no power imbalance due to age disparity. However, if there is more than an normal chance that their offspring will not have the same physical and intellectual freedom as the rest of us, then they should be forbidden from procreating.

    But society at present will not allow this to happen, and no, I don’t fancy any of my sisters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Michael (896 comments) says:

    Why is it legal for me to marry my (First) Cousin in NZ, but not legal for two unrelated people to marry because they are both the same sex? And why is it not legal for unmarried couples to adopt – that really is a moral taboo that has long since gone the way of the Dodo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Mick Mac

    I’m merely suggesting that, amongst other things, if being gay is fully legal, then it will no longer be fashionable to be gay. They will also have nothing to complain about, which at the moment gives them a lot of airtime.

    Let’s face it, most Christians think society has gone to the pack anyway, so why not just seek the path of least harm. You don’t have to approve, and you can bring your children up not to approve, but you ain’t gonna change em.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    What’s so great about being an “ordinary” person? Sounds boring.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Weihana,

    “I’m with Ron Paul. I support all voluntary relationships.”

    Oh good. So you support an end to income tax, compulsory education, all forms of state education, and the welfare system as well? After all, those are, according to Ron Paul, illegitimate as they are based on forced rather than voluntary association.

    Or am I right in thinking that your being selective and hypocritical? Voluntary association for perverts, buts the rest of us have to be enslaved and pillaged and forced against our will to support your liberal welfare state.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    # Mick Mac (391) Says:
    October 6th, 2011 at 5:56 pm

    Andrei (1,053) Says:
    October 6th, 2011 at 4:25 pm

    On the button.

    Isn’t it funny how with all the evidence for mom and pop, the bleaters keep pushing their barrow.
    shows it’s not logical either.

    ————————————–

    Please cite this evidence so it can be considered.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “Please cite this evidence so it can be considered.”

    Over a thousand years of Tradition in the West, the Natural Order, and just plain common sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    # Lee01 (1,204) Says:
    October 6th, 2011 at 6:15 pm

    Weihana,

    “I’m with Ron Paul. I support all voluntary relationships.”

    Oh good. So you support an end to income tax, compulsory education, all forms of state education, and the welfare system as well? After all, those are, according to Ron Paul, illegitimate as they are based on forced rather than voluntary association.

    Or am I right in thinking that your being selective and hypocritical? Voluntary association for perverts, buts the rest of us have to be enslaved and pillaged to support your liberal welfare state.

    ———————————–

    There is nothing hypocritical about my stance. I support voluntary relationships. That doesn’t imply that I am opposed to ALL involuntary ones.

    I’m not opposed to the relationship between the individual and their duty to pay a reasonable amount of taxation to support justified government services. I’m not opposed to the relationship between the criminal and the prison which keeps them locked up. I’m not opposed to the relationship between children and their parents where the child are subject to the rules of their parents (within the bounds of decency and human rights).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    # Lee01 (1,205) Says:
    October 6th, 2011 at 6:19 pm

    “Please cite this evidence so it can be considered.”

    Over a thousand years of Tradition in the West, the Natural Order, and just plain common sense.

    ——————

    In other words you have no evidence. Just waffle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Chuck Bird (4,688 comments) says:

    “I don’t fancy any of my sisters.”

    How about your mother?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “There is nothing hypocritical about my stance. I support voluntary relationships. That doesn’t imply that I am opposed to involuntary ones.”

    Yes, that is hypocritical.

    Pathetic.

    Liberals are full of shit. They wank on about “freedom” and “voluntary association” when it suits their anti-Tradition and anti-Family agenda, but otherwise its slavery and involuntary rape and pillage.

    So, so far we have determined that Weihana thinks all Africans and Asians are poor and stupid (because they are becoming Christians), whether or not torturing babies for kicks is wrong is just a matter of opinion, and voluntary association is right for homos but the rest of us have to be forced against our will to support his massive and dysfunctional welfare state.

    Your credibility is well and truly in the toilet.

    “In other words you have no evidence. ”

    To anyone with a shred of decency and intelligence that is evidence. Obviously that excludes lying hypocrits and apologists for baby torturers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    been at least 5 or 6 different models put forward in the scientific literature to explain what its benefit might be.

    And they were all found to be bullshit?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Its freedom or Statism Weihana. You cannot have it both ways just to suit youself. Try to make up whatever is left of your mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Scott Chris,

    “However, if there is more than an normal chance that their offspring will not have the same physical and intellectual freedom as the rest of us, then they should be forbidden from procreating.”

    Interesting argument. Hard to argue against and seems perfectly reasonable. But can this argument be extended?

    There are other people who for different reasons are also at risk of producing disabled children due to genetic factors involving one or both parents or the combination of those particular parents. Should the law also address this?

    In principle I would say it should. If parents keep having babies in the hopes of producing a normal child but keep producing disabled ones then I think they should be prevented from gambling the future of their potential children. But on the other hand does this happen very often such that a government remedy is needed?

    Although many such parents might seek the help of cutting edge technology to see if the deficiences can be avoided and this would seem to raise the possibility that closely related people could also get the same assistance to ensure any offspring were healthy which may destroy the argument for preventing procreation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Weihana…spell it with me….

    H Y P O C R I S Y

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    # Lee01 (1,207) Says:
    October 6th, 2011 at 6:29 pm

    Its freedom or Statism Weihana. You cannot have it both ways just to suit youself. Try to make up whatever is left of your mind.

    ——————–

    If you want to view it in such ridiculously simplistic (and stupid) terms then that’s your prerogative, but in no way does the false paradigm you are trapped in serve as legitimate criticism of my ideas.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    We are all “anomalies”. We all have traits that fall outside what is common and in this respect we are all, in one way or another, part of a minority.

    Well that’s a load of crap, but typical of progressive mantra, – (when caught out, redefine terms).

    Homosexuals aren’t asking you to treat them as if they were something other than what they are, they are simply asking for equal protection of the law.

    Bullshit.

    When they cannot form a legally recognized union with the person they love, a legal framework designed to protect the interests of both parties as it does in other relationships, then they are not being given equal protection of the law.

    Where the hell have you been? do you not understand the EQUAL status of civil unions and marriage under NZ law?

    When the government says heterosexual couples can adopt but homosexual couples cannot adopt then they are being discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. Can such discrimination be justified? I do not see that it can. A child is perfectly capable of being raised healthy and proper by a homosexual couple as compared a heterosexual couple or a solo parent. Indeed I and many others who do not live in a bubble have witnessed this.

    I am completely open to the possibility, but I am completely realistic in it’s likely application. The reality is, a stable heterosexual relationship is always going to be better for a child than a homosexual one, and there are a lot more heterosexual couples looking to adopt.

    This primarily only affects gay men by the way, at present half the homosexual community can have a child if they want to, they just have to give birth to it, imagine that!!

    The factors which tend to cause children to grow up dysfunctional have nothing *instrinsically* to do with whether their parents are gay or whether they have one or two parents.

    Oh really?? so solo parent homes have nothing to do with dysfunctional kids? you really have swallowed this crap hook line and sinker haven’t you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. big bruv (13,331 comments) says:

    In this day and age why do we even have such a thing as ‘gay issues’ or a rainbow organisation?

    It strikes me that the Rainbow group are a bunch of self serving individuals who are in constant search of an ‘outrage’ to justify their being.

    For all intense and purposes we are all equal these days, there is no need for racist political parties or special interested groups based on sexuality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda (1,959) Says:
    October 6th, 2011 at 6:40 pm

    “Well that’s a load of crap, but typical of progressive mantra, – (when caught out, redefine terms).”

    Nothing has been redefined. An anomaly is something different from what is usual. Everyone has something about them that is different from what is usual.

    “Where the hell have you been? do you not understand the EQUAL status of civil unions and marriage under NZ law?”

    They aren’t equal. If they were we wouldn’t need to call them civil unions, we’d just call it marriage.

    “The reality is, a stable heterosexual relationship is always going to be better for a child than a homosexual one, and there are a lot more heterosexual couples looking to adopt.”

    Better how? The only factor I can think of which may make it not better are people like yourself who promote prejudice and antipathy towards homosexuals (as evidenced by your raving diatribe here) that influences and promotes bullying of children for either being gay or being associated with something that is gay. But given that such things can happen for having parents that are of a particular religion, or any other number of reasons, it’s hardly a relevant factor in assessing what’s best for a child.

    “This primarily only affects gay men by the way, at present half the homosexual community can have a child if they want to, they just have to give birth to it, imagine that!!”

    Adoption is not the same thing as having a child yourself. Angelina Jolie adopts children when she is perfectly capable of having one on her own. The right to adoption is not dependent on whether or not you can have children of your own. It’s about equal treatment under the law.

    “Oh really?? so solo parent homes have nothing to do with dysfunctional kids? you really have swallowed this crap hook line and sinker haven’t you.”

    I think the reasons FOR a parent being a solo parent is a greater factor than the simple fact that they are a solo parent. A solo parent is quite capable of raising a perfectly healthy child though it’s obviously going to require more work and a parent who has the means to provide all that is necessary on their own. So for instance a upper-middle class parent with a solid professional career is going to find it much more easy as compared to a person of a lower class with less stable employment prospects.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “but in no way does the false paradigm you are trapped in serve as legitimate criticism of my ideas.”

    Yes it does. It proves that like most Liberals, you are full of shit. You claim freedom when it suits you, and slavery to the welfare state when it suits you.

    That is total hypocrisy, made worse by the fact that you tried to drag Ron Paul into it to hypocritically bolster your vapid arguments. Paul is a conservative Christian Libertarian, who is utterly opposed to the managerial welfare state and would find your apologetics for authoritarian statism obscene.

    FULL OF SHIT

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “An anomaly is something different from what is usual. Everyone has something about them that is different from what is usual.”

    Having a mole on your butt is an anomaly. Stickink your dick in a mans ass is not an anomaly, but perversion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    # big bruv (9,424) Says:
    October 6th, 2011 at 6:51 pm

    In this day and age why do we even have such a thing as ‘gay issues’ or a rainbow organisation?

    It strikes me that the Rainbow group are a bunch of self serving individuals who are in constant search of an ‘outrage’ to justify their being.

    For all intense and purposes we are all equal these days, there is no need for racist political parties or special interested groups based on sexuality.

    ———————————

    It wasn’t that long ago that homosexuality was illegal. I don’t think there is anything wrong with special interest groups ensuring that equality is maintained and in areas where equality is lacking that improvement is sought. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance and it is folly to assume that just because things have gotten better that there aren’t people out there who want to take us backward.

    And no, they aren’t equal whilst they are denied to the right to adopt.

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

    Fundamentalist christians, fundamentalist muslims, fundamentalist anything scare me becuase they want the world to be black and white –

    their intolerance manifests itself in hatred because they are ignorant and too fucking lazy to educate themselves to the fact that the world is made up of various shades of grey .

    No one is right about everything all the time . There are some very ignorant lazy bastards commenting here

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. gump (1,491 comments) says:

    Barray said:

    “Now there is a group in Europe wanting to have all restrictions on who you can marry removed – so that you can marry you first cousin or brother or sister or mother or father…!!”

    —————————-

    Marriage between first cousins has been legal in NZ since the foundation of the state.

    Furthermore it is estimated that “slightly more than 10 percent of marriages worldwide are between people who are second cousins or closer”

    Source = http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/26/garden/26cousins.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    “Stickink your dick in a mans ass is not an anomaly, but perversion.”

    Why? Because your imaginary sky father says so. Someone call the men in white coats! :)

    “Paul is a conservative Christian Libertarian, who is utterly opposed to the managerial welfare state and would find your apologetics for authoritarian statism obscene.”

    He’s also for legalizing all drugs. Like you I can support people on things I agree with and oppose them on things I don’t agree with. Because I agree with Ron Paul’s stance towards relationships doesn’t mean I agree with everything he has ever said, just as you don’t.

    “FULL OF SHIT”

    You’re ranting and raving like a complete loon. My work bears fruit! ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. mikenmild (10,766 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay
    Good call. It can be a bit depressing sometimes: “all gays are perverts”, all Muslims are terrorists”, etc, etc. Although it must be good for the simple-minded to keep things so simplistic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. reid (15,981 comments) says:

    In this day and age why do we even have such a thing as ‘gay issues’ or a rainbow organisation?

    Oh dear BB, it’s because they’re discwiminated against, you big silly.

    Evewywhere one looks, there are wacists, gay-bashers, nasty angry people all awound us 24/7/365. Metewia and Hone and Bwadford and Campbell and Walwus and evewyone all say it all the time so it must be twue!

    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    This is emewgency wed alewt tewwitowy.

    The good thing is all the poor persecuted minowity gwoups which appawently also include women, know exactly who’s to blame for this outwage.

    That’s wight!

    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    It’s white males, except for the gay ones, they’we OK cause they’re a minowity, like the west of us.

    So this is how it works, BB. Apparently. Correct me if I’m wrong but bizarre as it sounds, isn’t this exactly what political discourse on shit like this always consists of and nothing but, these days? See the article today about De Bris declaring Mutu not to be wacist. WTF would he have said if Clive Harris had said precisely exactly the same thing about the Maowi.

    And whether it’s gays, Maori, the poor, women, children, all this discwimination appawently is weally weally bad.

    It never seems to occur to a soul these days, that women are in fact different from men, Maori are different from Europeans who are different from Asians, gays are different from straight and that’s not discwimination that’s a mere fact of fucking life, FFS.

    Duh.

    Try and pretend it’s not.

    I don’t see why gays should be allowed to adopt and I don’t see why lesbians should be permitted access to artificial insemination, either. Adoption is not about the “parents” FFS it’s 100% about the child. I’m afraid IMO it’s simply not acceptable for the state, which is us, if WE have the choice and burdened as WE are with the sacred responsibility of looking after an orphan, adopting that child to a lifetime of exposure to nothing but gay role models, is not a “normal” upbringing. It’s not. Scientifically, statistically, it’s just not. % of gays? Who cares. If the state doesn’t have to expose a child to an upbringing that is not “mainstream,” if that state (WE!) have a choice, then why should WE agree to do that, if we don’t have to: i.e. there are hetro couples in the wings.

    Why?

    This is not discrimination, at all, since as I said and you cannot dispute it, this is, in fact, 100% exclusively about the well-being of that orphaned and vulnerable human being in OUR charge and we have a DUTY to give it the best possible start in all respects in every way and that includes selecting couples who are the best possible “mainstream” alternative on any and every given day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Weihana – “There are other people who for different reasons are also at risk of producing disabled children due to genetic factors involving one or both parents or the combination of those particular parents. Should the law also address this?”

    Heh. Tricky. Personally, I’d like to draw an arbitrary line at what I’d consider to be reasonable risk, but you’ve identified the flaw in that idea. It is too prescriptive.

    I suppose one could simply abort a defective fetus, as this is what the majority of society deems morally acceptable at present, so I suppose using the same moral standard, one would have to allow brothers and sisters the same freedom.

    But the problem I have with that idea is the age old moral dilemma surrounding abortion. To me, the idea that a human being only starts its existence upon exiting the woman’s body is flawed, so to say that a developed fetus has no rights is also flawed.

    So the only solution once again, is yet another arbitrary line.

    Have you got any bright ideas on this subject, cause I don’t….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    Oh good. So you support an end to income tax,

    Yes.

    compulsory education, all forms of state education,

    Children aren’t consenting adults. Their education adds to their freedom once they become adults.

    and the welfare system as well?

    Yes.

    After all, those are, according to Ron Paul, illegitimate as they are based on forced rather than voluntary association.

    Yes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. big bruv (13,331 comments) says:

    Gay adoption is simply a red herring anyway. As it stand there are not enough kids being put up for adoption to satisfy demand.
    In every case the child should be out with a normal heterosexual couple first, only if there are no suitable applicants (never likely to happen) should homosexual couples be considered.

    I genuinely don’s care who is married or not, I don’t care what people do in their sex lives as long as it is between consenting adults and does not involve kids or animals but I do draw the line as children being used by the rainbow movement to make a political point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    reid (8,522) Says:
    October 6th, 2011 at 7:26 pm

    “I don’t see why gays should be allowed to adopt and I don’t see why lesbians should be permitted access to artificial insemination, either. Adoption is not about the “parents” FFS it’s 100% about the child.”

    “…a lifetime of exposure to nothing but gay role models, is not a “normal” upbringing.”

    “…an upbringing that is not “mainstream,””

    “…we have a DUTY to give it the best possible start in all respects in every way and that includes selecting couples who are the best possible “mainstream” alternative on any and every given day.”

    ——————————————

    reid, while you attend to the malfunctioning exclamation key on your keyboard how about I point out the obvious flaw in your not-well-thought-out argument.

    To summarize your argument it is that homosexuals should not be permitted to raise children because it’s not normal and therefore not in the child’s best interests.

    But you know what else isn’t normal or mainstream? Muslim parents. Hindu parents as well. They are clearly small minorities in our society and definitely not mainstream. Should they be banned from raising children? I guess so according to your logic.

    Indeed there are many different types of parents which are not “normal” or “mainstream”. Libertarian parents, Green Party parents, parents where both have red hair, parents who believe the Earth was created 6000 years ago, parents who believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy, parents who belong to the Exclusive Brethren, parents who think Phil Goff is going to be the next Prime Minister…

    But you know what other type of parent is increasingly rare and non-mainstream? Bigots like you. And for me this really convinces me that you are right because I have deep sympathy for any child forced to live under your roof.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Big Bruv,

    “…but I do draw the line as children being used by the rainbow movement to make a political point.”

    So when a straight couple wants to adopt a child they do it because they are loving and want to raise a family, but when a homosexual couple does it they just want to make a political point.

    Prejudiced much?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. nasska (10,696 comments) says:

    THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA

    You’ve read all the experts here on Kiwiblog telling us that there’s a “Homosexual Agenda,” but no one has ever seen it. Well, this afternoon someone managed to sneak into the top secret Homosexual Headquarters, somewhere in Auckland, and got a copy… Here it is: The Homosexual Agenda!

    6 a.m. Gym
    8 a.m. Breakfast (museli and yoghurt)
    9 a.m. Hair appointment
    10 a.m. Shopping
    12 p.m. Brunch
    2 p.m. Assume complete control of governments and related agencies…except the IRD. Destroy all heterosexual marriages. Replace school counsellors with militant homosexuals to recruit all school kids for the homosexual lifestyle. Infiltrate various religious factions to convert them to paganism or hair dressing. Seize control of Internet and all other media.
    3 p.m…..Be utterly fabulous!
    5 p.m. Beauty rest to prevent facial wrinkles from the stress of world conquest, followed by aromatherapy
    6 p.m. Cocktails
    7 p.m. Light dinner (soup, salad with arugula & balsamic vinegar dressing, Chardonnay)
    8 p.m. Theatre or Ballet
    10 p.m. Cocktails in a charming neighbourhood bistro
    12 a.m. Bed (du jour).

    Bet you didn’t know that the Agenda really existed, I always thought that it was just propaganda from the religious zealots.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Fundamentalist christians, fundamentalist muslims, fundamentalist anything scare me becuase they want the world to be black and white –

    Fundamentalist lefties??

    their intolerance manifests itself in hatred because they are ignorant and too fucking lazy to educate themselves to the fact that the world is made up of various shades of grey .

    No one is right about everything all the time . There are some very ignorant lazy bastards commenting here

    Gee Paul, your argument is so compelling, what, with the authoritative tone and the obvious lack of substance implying that you are clearly right and everybody else is just sooooo wrong.

    I vote Paul as the laziest bastard here so far.

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

    nasska :D (nice to have some humour to blow away the cobwebs of piety)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Bet you didn’t know that the Agenda really existed, I always thought that it was just propaganda from the religious zealots.

    It’s called “After the Ball” by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.

    Try again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Andrei (2,506 comments) says:

    Prejudiced much?

    No with Gay activists its all about me me me they are a self absorbed narcissistic bunch.

    If children are important to you – you make the choice of partner that can co-operate with you to conceive new life.

    Rich pampered arseholes like Elton John can exploit poor women to do the female parts so as to provide photo ops for Womans weekly with his and his partners ” child” and make their point.

    But very few gays males want kids they just would get in the way

    But who is really raising that child – fucking nannies that’s who will be changing the poor little tykes nappies a 2am not freak face that’s for sure

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. big bruv (13,331 comments) says:

    Weihana
    “So when a straight couple wants to adopt a child they do it because they are loving and want to raise a family, but when a homosexual couple does it they just want to make a political point.

    Prejudiced much?”

    Nah, see unlike you I just want what is best for the kid, unlike you I am not out to make this a homosexual rights issue, when it comes to adoption there is only one thing that must be considered and that is what is best for the kid.
    In every case it is better to have that kid placed with a normal heterosexual family. Your comment actually backs up what I am saying, you are not interested in the child, you are interested in the homosexual couple being allowed to adopt, to you and them the “right” is what matters.

    Now, given that you have ignored the main point in my comment (normal behaviour from those afraid to have a real debate) I feel that I must drag you kicking and screaming back to the fact that there are far more couples wanting to adopt than there are kids available for adoption.
    This alone will mean that gay adoption is not on the horizon for some time to come.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. reid (15,981 comments) says:

    But you know what else isn’t normal or mainstream? Muslim parents. Hindu parents as well. They are clearly small minorities in our society and definitely not mainstream. Should they be banned from raising children? I guess so according to your logic.

    Indeed there are many different types of parents which are not “normal” or “mainstream”. Libertarian parents, Green Party parents, parents where both have red hair, parents who believe the Earth was created 6000 years ago, parents who believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy, parents who belong to the Exclusive Brethren, parents who think Phil Goff is going to be the next Prime Minister…

    But you know what other type of parent is increasingly rare and non-mainstream? Bigots like you. And for me this really convinces me that you are right because I have deep sympathy for any child forced to live under your roof.

    OK then Weihana. Should single men be allowed to adopt a child? Should people with criminal convictions? Should people who can’t speak English and have no education be allowed to adopt a child? Should a P-addict or a skinhead or a gang member be allowed to adopt a child?

    If not, why not?

    Bet you didn’t know that the Agenda really existed, I always thought that it was just propaganda from the religious zealots.

    Well aren’t you a big silly then, nasska.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Better how? The only factor I can think of which may make it not better are people like yourself who promote prejudice and antipathy towards homosexuals (as evidenced by your raving diatribe here) that influences and promotes bullying of children for either being gay or being associated with something that is gay.

    Oh dear, I have clearly upset this social progressive, and now I must be ‘progressively’ painted as a raving monster bigot that hates bichon freeze’s and promotes the oppression of kids.

    The only people that are intolerant here are the ones that demand that I redefine an expression of my sexuality to accommodate a small minority of insecure homosexuals and a majority of busy body nihilistic social progressives that have spent the last decade tearing far more down than building anything up.

    Which, I guess, is why despite your pathetic objections, you no longer have a shit show of regaining any real influence over these issues for quite some time.

    For the record, I support civil unions, I am not technically opposed to gay people raising kids, but I am totally opposed to the handing over of a heterosexual institution to satisfy the desires of a noisy irrational group of people that resent the fact that due to society naturally becoming more tolerant have lost the spotlight offending their narcissistic disposition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. toad (3,670 comments) says:

    @Lee01 7:01 pm

    Stickink your dick in a mans ass is not an anomaly, but perversion.

    Why does a man “sticking his dick” in a man’s (or a woman’s) ass have anything to do with you or with public policy as long as it is something both people involved consent to?

    Surely, if that is what both people concerned enjoy it is no business of yours or mine or the Government’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. big bruv (13,331 comments) says:

    Toad

    I feel ill!…I just agreed with you on something.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    # big bruv (9,427) Says:
    October 6th, 2011 at 8:44 pm

    Weihana
    “So when a straight couple wants to adopt a child they do it because they are loving and want to raise a family, but when a homosexual couple does it they just want to make a political point.

    Prejudiced much?”

    Nah, see unlike you I just want what is best for the kid, unlike you I am not out to make this a homosexual rights issue, when it comes to adoption there is only one thing that must be considered and that is what is best for the kid.
    In every case it is better to have that kid placed with a normal heterosexual family. Your comment actually backs up what I am saying, you are not interested in the child, you are interested in the homosexual couple being allowed to adopt, to you and them the “right” is what matters.

    Now, given that you have ignored the main point in my comment (normal behaviour from those afraid to have a real debate) I feel that I must drag you kicking and screaming back to the fact that there are far more couples wanting to adopt than there are kids available for adoption.
    This alone will mean that gay adoption is not on the horizon for some time to come.

    —————————————–

    Having homosexual parents is not harmful to the child. Your entire argument is built on this false premise. If Maori parents were not allowed to adopt and they complained would you likewise argue that it’s not about the parents right to adopt but about the child? “Oh but being Maori is not harmful to a child” you say. Yeah and neither is being gay which is why homosexual couples have a legitimate complaint.

    Further it doesn’t matter if there is a surplus of parents wanting to adopt. Homosexual couples should have the same chance as any other. There is no reason to automatically grant adoption to a heterosexual couple over a homosexual couple except your anti-gay bigotry. The decision should be made on relevant factors not your small-minded hatred and prejudice. There are many factors which determine what’s best for a child and the sexual orientation of the parents is not one of them. A child should not be put with a heterosexual couple that is less suitable than a homosexual couple simply on the basis of sexual orientation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Surely, if that is what both people concerned enjoy it is no business of yours or mine or the Government’s.

    Like the food we eat Toad??

    Be careful……

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. reid (15,981 comments) says:

    Surely, if that is what both people concerned enjoy it is no business of yours or mine or the Government’s.

    It is all of our business toad since WE are the state and particularly when it involves the responsible discharge of sacred duty of care to the most vulnerable possible human in OUR state.

    This is the point where it does become relevant to distinguish between those who like their own sex and the natural – as in, it’s nature – parental coupling which has evolved us into who we are for all except the very very last few decades of our collective evolution.

    The statistics don’t lie. How much % are gays? Some say ten. Personally, I say 2%. But it’s irrelevant what the number is since fact is in context of discharge of sacred duty you just can’t condemn a child to parental role models that only represent that %. It’s cruel. For parental role models toad shape you.

    Why should we condemn our charge to roles models who represent a very small minority of life, no matter how much they are good, responsible, ethical, intelligent, resourceful and well resourced? Why should we as a society condemn OUR orphan to role models like that, on such superficial grounds as those, given that those role models will turn out the person, if we also have a choice of others who equally have exactly those values, plus they are straight?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda (1,962) Says:
    October 6th, 2011 at 8:53 pm

    “Oh dear, I have clearly upset this social progressive”

    Well I do feel sorry for you. I wish you knew the joys of having a brain but I fear you may never know and this saddens me.

    “The only people that are intolerant here are the ones that demand that I redefine an expression of my sexuality to accommodate a small minority of insecure homosexuals and a majority of busy body nihilistic social progressives that have spent the last decade tearing far more down than building anything up.”

    No one is demanding anything of you, in fact. You can define and redefine anything you like. No one is interested in your “sexuality”. You just keep that between yourself and your vibrator.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    reid (8,525) Says:
    October 6th, 2011 at 9:08 pm

    “Why should we condemn our charge to roles models who represent a very small minority of life, no matter how much they are good, responsible, ethical, intelligent, resourceful and well resourced? Why should we as a society condemn OUR orphan to role models like that, on such superficial grounds as those, given that those role models will turn out the person, if we also have a choice of others who equally have exactly those values, plus they are straight?”

    In other words, no one can adopt unless they’re white, heterosexual, upper middle class Christians who vote National and watch Rugby.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. toad (3,670 comments) says:

    @Shunda barunda 9:03 pm

    Like the food we eat Toad??

    That has Health Budget implications, Shunda. Your and my taxes are spent treating people for obesity-caused diseases. So the Government does have a role in encouraging healthy diets.

    Just as the Government does in encouraging safe sex, because unsafe sex also has implications for the Health Budget.

    But as long as the sex is safe, which gender you fuck, or which orifice is engaged, doesn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda (1,963) Says:
    October 6th, 2011 at 8:53 pm

    “I am totally opposed to the handing over of a heterosexual institution”

    WTF does this mean? In concrete terms. None of this waffle. If gay people get married or adopt, what impact does this have on YOUR life. Be specific.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Weihana, keep it up, you are sounding more convincing with every word.

    I see you have avoided the guts of my post and resorted to the standard social progressive stance of “your dumb” and (surprisingly) you reveal your own prejudice against vibrating pleasure devices, I am assuming a bad experience with a bedroom “power tool”???.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. big bruv (13,331 comments) says:

    Weihana

    Every comment you make just reinforces what I have said.

    Time and time again you keep making it a gay rights issue when that it not what matters. I happen to agree that the sexual orientation of the ‘parents’ should not matter (a point you ignore and continue to try and label me as a bigot or a homophobe which is not the case) however there is a mountain or evidence that says that the kids best chance at a normal life is to be with a heterosexual couple.

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

    Shunda,, not everyone one on this is sooooo wrong, Bruv, Toad and others show some tolerance

    The hetrosexual institution (of marriage?) isnt yours to hand over one way or the other, who the fuck are you ?, except someone whose intolerance just confirms my comment about ignorance. Sad really.

    Just quickly, how long have you been happily married?

    How do you behave towards your homosexual priest, teacher, workmate child?

    And Andrei the christianity just shines through on your 8.43 pm , fairly glows with understanding and tolerance, it not relegion thats bad its wankers like you with a world view about 2mm wide

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. toad (3,670 comments) says:

    @reid 9:08 pm

    …distinguish between those who like their own sex and the natural – as in, it’s nature – parental coupling…

    Oh, FFS, are you suggesting sex should only be for procreation? Most of us do it because we enjoy it. Yours must be a very sad and frustrated life, reid.

    Oh, and as had been mentioned earlier on this thread, around 400 species are documented as exhibiting homosexual behaviour, so hardly not “natural”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    big bruv (9,429) Says:
    October 6th, 2011 at 9:20 pm

    “…however there is a mountain or evidence that says that the kids best chance at a normal life is to be with a heterosexual couple.”

    Such as?

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

    I assume all the loving Christians here who are opposed to anal sex as it doesn’t create children (like thats relevant in any way) also never engage in oral sex either? A lot of backed up sexually repressed God botherers who secretly have weak faith in that God have no business telling anyone else whats is sexually right and good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. big bruv (13,331 comments) says:

    Toad

    You just had to go and ruin it didn’t you.

    Shunda made a good point, it highlights (as if it was needed) the rank hypocrisy of the Greens. You guys want to control every aspect of our lives yet on the issue of gay rights and drugs you want things liberalised.

    I guess that just proves once again what a duplicitous bunch of bastards you lot really are.

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

    A child should be dammed to have any parents at all…theres no such right as the ‘right” to a parent….nature doesn’t recognize that made up nonsense so why should we?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda (1,964) Says:
    October 6th, 2011 at 9:20 pm

    “you reveal your own prejudice against vibrating pleasure devices”

    Well I don’t fancy shoving one up my backside. I ain’t no f’n queer! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    WTF does this mean? In concrete terms. None of this waffle. If gay people get married or adopt, what impact does this have on YOUR life. Be specific.

    I have already stated my position on adoption (which you clearly missed due to an over excited ‘bigot radar’)

    But on Marriage? I want to ask you a couple of questions first:

    1. What impact does it have on a homosexual couple that can get a civil union (with ALL the same legal rights and benefits of traditional marriage) if the term marriage is simply retained as defining a heterosexual union?

    2. Is it wrong for there to be gender or race specific institutions? if so, why?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. toad (3,670 comments) says:

    @The Scorned 9:27 pm

    And on that reasoning, they wouldn’t masturbate either. Hands up, Christians, who of you abstains from that?

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

    “Hands up”

    and down and up and down… ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. reid (15,981 comments) says:

    In other words, no one can adopt unless they’re white, heterosexual, upper middle class Christians who vote National and watch Rugby.

    That’s pretty much the idea Weihana. I suppose it’s possible if we run out of white, upper middle class Christians who vote National and watch Rugby that other people might also get a go. But only then. You got it.

    Well done.

    Took a while. Crikey I was thinking, to myself. But well done.

    Good effort tonight.

    Keep it up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. big bruv (13,331 comments) says:

    “Oh, FFS, are you suggesting sex should only be for procreation?”

    Never met Lucia then?

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

    And on that note http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifgHHhw_6g8

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

    Sex obviously isnt a laughing matter Rodders, so please, decorum.

    So, sex is for hetrosexual married couples then ( I must tell my wife ),the rest have to suffer in silence,…. there are a couple here that need a really good work out,…… there are professionals out there for the socially inadequate…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. toad (3,670 comments) says:

    @big bruv 9:32 pm

    Not personally (thankfully) although well acquainted with her views.

    Surprising she hasn’t engaged with this thread – can’t imagine she has spent her entire evening masturbating praying.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda 是同性戀。他是在拒絕。他想親吻男人的流浪漢。

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Chuck Bird (4,688 comments) says:

    “Just as the Government does in encouraging safe sex, because unsafe sex also has implications for the Health Budget.

    But as long as the sex is safe, which gender you fuck, or which orifice is engaged, doesn’t.”

    Maybe not on the planet you come from but it does on earth.

    Male homosexuals and bisexuals combined make up less than 3% population of the population yet account over 50% of HIV infections in NZ.

    Explain that and don’t talk about Africa.

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

    can’t imagine she has spent her entire evening……………

    With that vision bringing to mind Ken Russells ” The Devils” , adieu

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

    Scott, when I tried google translate it said “Is gay. He was refused. He wanted to kiss a man homeless”
    :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. reid (15,981 comments) says:

    Oh, FFS, are you suggesting sex should only be for procreation?

    Oh, and as had been mentioned earlier on this thread, around 400 species are documented as exhibiting homosexual behaviour, so hardly not “natural”.

    toad I’m not suggesting anything I’m stating what to you apparently, is an “inconvenient truth.”

    Apparently, children of all species arise in and are naturally raised in – as in, it’s natural – a unit where there is both a male and a female. Apparently that’s a fact, albeit inconvenient to those who proclaim the modern pwogwessive “blended” family is the “modern” family unit.

    So if people by themselves want to arrange themselves in what is by definition perverse structures (look up perverse if you don’t agree) then go ahead. But if and when it involves ME and YOU giving away a child into the care of said perverse structure then sorry, I’m not with you.

    That’s the point, toad. Inconvenient for some, may it be.

    A gay couple is a perverse structure, it is not a family unit, it’s a couple of people doing whatever, not a family. Sorry. It’s not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Shunda,, not everyone one on this is sooooo wrong, Bruv, Toad and others show some tolerance

    Wow! so authoritative!!

    The hetrosexual institution (of marriage?) isnt yours to hand over one way or the other, who the fuck are you ?, except someone whose intolerance just confirms my comment about ignorance. Sad really.

    And who the fuck are you? your logic could equally describe those that want the institution, as it can’t be about rights as the ‘rights’ have been resolved with the civil union legislation.

    Stop being so damned intolerant of other peoples rights Paul, you sound like a real bigot arsehole.

    Just quickly, how long have you been happily married?

    Long enough.

    How do you behave towards your homosexual priest, teacher, workmate child?

    I don’t go to church, I got on well with the homosexual teachers I knew (worked with one for 4 years), and my kids aren’t gay.

    And Andrei the christianity just shines through on your 8.43 pm , fairly glows with understanding and tolerance, it not relegion thats bad its wankers like you with a world view about 2mm wide

    Oh dear Paul, keep pushing mate, I am sure shit gets lighter the higher up the hill you go.

    But yeah, I am starting to realise that it is only because of some Christians responses to issues like this that you have any traction at all, if it wasn’t for dumb arguments from the faithful, common sense would have resolved this a long time ago.

    I do understand why you have to provoke them to maintain your position, not that it makes it more rational.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. Chuck Bird (4,688 comments) says:

    “And on that note http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifgHHhw_6g8

    Thanks Rodders. Brilliant.

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

    Bruv…..like you want to control the aspect of our free choice to work and open our businesses on public holidays…..?

    Hypocrisy much?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda (1,965) Says:
    October 6th, 2011 at 9:29 pm

    But on Marriage? I want to ask you a couple of questions first:

    “1. What impact does it have on a homosexual couple that can get a civil union (with ALL the same legal rights and benefits of traditional marriage) if the term marriage is simply retained as defining a heterosexual union?”

    Well since we’re into answering questions with questions, I’ll ask one…

    What impact does it have if non-Maori can have democratic representation via general electorate seats and Maori have democratic representation via Maori seats as long as everyone gets the same representation proportionally? It’s just a name isn’t it? We’re still equal aren’t we? Separate but equal as the saying goes.

    “2. Is it wrong for there to be gender or race specific institutions? if so, why?”

    Yes I believe it is wrong to have race specific GOVERNMENT institutions. The government should be racially blind.

    Gender is slightly different where it pertains to matters where gender is relevant. There are genuine differences between the genders. Though I don’t think there should be a “woman’s affairs” portfolio or any such nonsense. But some government services might conceivably only be provided to women or men, such as any publicly funded medical procedure that pertained only to women or conversely only to men.

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

    Shunda

    Guessed you were a school teacher, how I wonder

    I’m a bigot because I don’t agree with you Shunda, and I’m the intolerant arsehole (your pun,or is it more freudian/ I’d like to claim it but you got in first), as there are little beads of froth forming at the side of your mouth best I stop.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    And on that reasoning, they wouldn’t masturbate either. Hands up, Christians, who of you abstains from that?

    Pulling the pud, squeezing the squid, choking the chicken, hell Toad, even American Christian conservative Dr James Dobson doesn’t have much of an issue with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. big bruv (13,331 comments) says:

    Scorned

    If you want to get into that debate (and take another hammering) then at least quote me accurately.

    Or….just fuck off, either way I don’t much care.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Shunda

    Guessed you were a school teacher, how I wonder

    Ummm.. nope.

    I’m a bigot because I don’t agree with you Shunda, and I’m intolerant arsehole (your pun, I’d like to claim it but you got in first), there are little beads of froth forming at the side of you mouth best I stop.

    Ummm…nope

    This is called psychological projection children, isn’t it funny :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. toad (3,670 comments) says:

    @reid 9:43 pm

    Apparently, children of all species arise in and are naturally raised in – as in, it’s natural – a unit where there is both a male and a female.

    Oh, crap. In many animal species the male is absent from either conception or birth/hatching, and in a few is even eaten by the female following copulation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. reid (15,981 comments) says:

    Oh, crap. In many animal species the male is absent from either conception or birth/hatching, and in a few is even eaten by the female following copulation.

    Well apparently this doesn’t happen all the time to every living thing, does it toad, so not sure what your point is for you certainly haven’t addressed mine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. freemark (455 comments) says:

    No time to read the 279 posts here, however… I believe that every child should as a default have the opportunity to see man-woman love in their household/parents. Man/man or woman/woman love and kindness is doubtlessly rewarding as well, however career taxpayer funded breeders are far more destructive to their innocent children and society than anyone else. Tragically the vote buying policies of the Left have convinced the deluded otherwise. Go the AB’s, go the Nats.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. reid (15,981 comments) says:

    No time to read the 279 posts here

    Just read my ones, freemark. They’re the best ones…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Shunda Barunda – “What impact does it have on a homosexual couple that can get a civil union”

    The same reason why some many will buy Neurofen over Ibuprofen. They want the “Marriage” brand, because they feel validated by the brand. They have sentimental dreams of a big wedding with vows and flowers and a many tiered cake, rather than a $50 registry job.

    Personally, I think it’s all a waste of money, but through the ~magical~ power of empathy, I understand that some people are incurable Romantics. Especially gays.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Rodders

    LMAO :P I was simply enamoured of the beautiful calligraphy.

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

    Shunda

    No failure here, the only thing you have succeded with tonight is sucessfully making a smiley face, clear points decsion to Weihana

    Anyway , ” your ” institution of marriage is safe for another day, unless those nasty progressives do something during night when you are not looking

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

    Scott :D One of my work colleagues is Chinese. Perhaps I should aks her to translate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Anyway , ” your ” institution of marriage is safe for another day, unless those nasty progressives do something during night when you are not looking

    Gee Paul, you are kind of sounding like I may need to change the locks on my doors.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. Fletch (6,032 comments) says:

    You’ve read all the experts here on Kiwiblog telling us that there’s a “Homosexual Agenda,” but no one has ever seen it. – Nasska

    Nasska, you really want to see the homosexual agenda?
    It was published in the Gay Community News in 1987, and is now in the Congressional Record.
    Reprinted below –

    THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA

    By Michael Swift,
    “Gay Revolutionary.” Reprinted from The Congressional Record. First printed in Gay Community News, February 15-21 1987

    “We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.

    Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep. Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too, and only one man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand the depth and feeling, the mind and body of another man.

    All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men. All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.

    If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your
    cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.

    We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens. We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas. The museums of the world will be filled only with paintings of graceful, naked lads.

    Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through usage of the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing.

    We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators, your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sitting across the desk from you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.

    There will be no compromises. We are not middle-class weaklings. Highly
    intelligent, we are the natural aristocrats of the human race, and steely-minded aristocrats never settle for less. Those who oppose us will be exiled. We shall raise vast private armies, as Mishima did, to defeat you. We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by homosexual love and honor are invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers.

    The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence–will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.

    All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.

    The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men.

    We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions. We shall portray the homosexuality of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man.

    We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages. We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution.

    Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.”

    Lovely ey?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Rodders – my original entry was “is homosexual. He is in denial. He wants to kiss men on the bum.”

    Hilarious. Talk about lost in translation. I tried all sorts of text, but traditional Chinese was by far the most beautiful.

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

    “Talk about lost in translation”
    Funny you mention that, as another work colleague used that exact expression today :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    The same reason why some many will buy Neurofen over Ibuprofen. They want the “Marriage” brand, because they feel validated by the brand.

    In other words a whim.

    They have sentimental dreams of a big wedding with vows and flowers and a many tiered cake, rather than a $50 registry job.

    So the civil union legislation demands a “registry job”??

    You see, you argument here begins to collapse like a stack of cards holding up a sack of shit.
    Homosexuals can have whatever civil union they want and as extravagant as they want, they can even call it a wedding and can even use a priest.

    Personally, I think it’s all a waste of money, but through the ~magical~ power of empathy, I understand that some people are incurable Romantics. Especially gays.

    Oh please, this is just nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Rodders

    குட்நைட். தூங்க போக வேண்டிய நேரம்.

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

    My computer translates that as “*#^$&!#%&$%!&^*#$&a!@@;^*^#*&”
    G’nite Scott.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Shunda Barunda – “You see, you argument here begins to collapse like a stack of cards holding up a sack of shit.”

    Not at all. I was using simple hyperbole. You have to actually make a point to critique an argument.

    “Oh please, this is just nonsense.”

    Makes perfect sense, if you accept the notion that your idea of reality is just one part of the multifaceted composition known as subjective truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    “Oh please, this is just nonsense.”

    Makes perfect sense, if you accept the notion that your idea of reality is just one part of the multifaceted composition known as subjective truth.

    In other words “Scott is talking unsubstantiated bullshit”

    But points for consistency, that I must concede.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Shunda Barunda – “In other words “Scott is talking unsubstantiated bullshit””

    That is about a sophisticated an argument as this:

    Me – “I think the All Blacks will play a conservative game to win the world cup”

    Shunda – “Will not!! And you smell!!”

    Good night.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  257. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Oh sorry Scott, so you have evidence that gays are more romantic than straights?
    what bloody drivel.

    You have effectively aided me in establishing that gay marriage is more about a simple ‘whim’ than anything to do with human rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. Aredhel777 (278 comments) says:

    “Think of it this way. What if Shunda Barundas were barred from adopting kids or getting married. How respectful would you be of society’s rules and how included would you feel in a culture that upheld the very laws that excluded you from participating fully in all its social rituals?”

    Well that is precisely what is happening in the UK at the moment, and no-one on the left is speaking up because Christianity is not ‘progressive’ or ‘oppressed’ in the sense that fashionable minorities are oppressed. When that comes here to New Zealand, we will be forced into civil disobedience. But I don’t see you advocating for Christian rights. Try speaking up in university tutorials from a Christian perspective for just one day, I dare you.

    “I assume all the loving Christians here who are opposed to anal sex as it doesn’t create children (like thats relevant in any way) also never engage in oral sex either? A lot of backed up sexually repressed God botherers who secretly have weak faith in that God have no business telling anyone else whats is sexually right and good.”

    Actually, I don’t. I have never had sex let alone oral sex and have no plans to until I’m married.

    Now, I believe that same-sex relationships are wrong, but I can see the way the wind is blowing and there are more pressing issues for Christians to be concerned about. Our own rights to adopt children, for example, and to bring them up in accordance with our beliefs. So long as nobody forces me to marry someone my own sex, I don’t care what people decide to do with their bodies. It’s their decision where they’ll spend eternity.

    It would be nice to see Courage Wolf and some others in this thread stop being so bigoted towards Christians. After all, you’re always on at us for being intolerant. Shouldn’t it be a two way street?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. Pete George (22,868 comments) says:

    After all, you’re always on at us for being intolerant. Shouldn’t it be a two way street?

    Yep, for sure. Tolerant atheists should join and speak strongly against the goading godless.

    But I don’t think atheists are trying to dictate to Christians what is acceptable sexual behaviour or not beyond the almost universal taboos like child abuse and forced sex.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  260. nasska (10,696 comments) says:

    Fletch @ 10.11pm

    You left footed me there as I didn’t know that such an “agenda” had existed never mind been published. It may, however, not be as cut & dried as your comment suggests. Wikipedia provides the following:

    Satire

    A satirical article by Michael Swift which appeared in the Gay Community News in February 1987 entitled “Gay Revolutionary” describes a scenario in which homosexual men dominate American society and suppress all things heterosexual. This was reprinted in Congressional Record without the opening disclaimer which made it clear that the article’s text was not intended to be taken literally.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_agenda

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. mikenmild (10,766 comments) says:

    Good spotting nasska. Fletch is showing a penchant for posting bogus information – like the bogus Paul Cameron ‘research’ earlier in this thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  262. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    There is only two types of tolerance.
    1. Where things will get better – eg: being tolerant when your child is learningto drive. They will stop running into things as they improve…
    2. Lowering your standards eg: accepting behaviour in others that you wouldnt tolerate from yourself. eg: being tolerant of some homosexual who wants to force their behaviour onto society – like asking young people at school imagine what its like to be queer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  263. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Aredhel – “But I don’t see you advocating for Christian rights. Try speaking up in university tutorials from a Christian perspective for just one day, I dare you.”

    I think you raise a reasonable point. Perhaps society should be more tolerant of Christians. Nevertheless, you have been the bullies on the block for centuries, so perhaps you are seen as tough enough to look after yourselves. Collectively you are still very powerful in spite of schismatic factionalism.

    One of the many differences between Christians and Gays though, is that Gays don’t condemn the rest of us to eternal torment. Makes it kinda hard to be sympathetic to your cause. Personally, I like Jesus, and I doubt that he ever really believed hell existed, so I wish Christians would listen more to Jesus’ message of tolerance and to one of his more famous sayings:

    “Don’t condemn others, unless you want to be condemned as well”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  264. nasska (10,696 comments) says:

    Scott Chris

    Your comment carries a lot of truth. Christians always come across, especially on this forum, as bigoted & unable to comprehend that there may be a valid viewpoint other than their own. I also go along with the general gist of “Aredhel777′s” comment to the effect that our actions are our own choices.

    It would, however, be ungracious for me not to acknowledge the contribution of the rabid xtians to this thread & indeed this blog……winding them up gives the rest of us many hours of amusement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  265. Pete George (22,868 comments) says:

    It’s not necessary to wind up extreme Christians, they are hire powered, ever ready to go on and on and on…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  266. nasska (10,696 comments) says:

    PG

    Truer words I’ve seldom read. Most of them remind me of the Energizer bunny.

    However each time topics such as sodomy or abortion are raised the whackos manage to reach new levels of hyperbole & condemnation so the entertainment factor may still have legs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  267. mikenmild (10,766 comments) says:

    The self-righteous must be late getting up this morning. Expect them along soon promising fire and brimstone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  268. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Scott Chris,

    “I like Jesus, and I doubt that he ever really believed hell existed”

    Jesus speaks of hell more than any other figure in Scriptue. In fact, taking the Bible as a whole, hell is mentioned more in Christ’s sayings than all the rest of Scripture put together.

    “so I wish Christians would listen more to Jesus’ message of tolerance and to one of his more famous sayings

    “Don’t condemn others, unless you want to be condemned as well””

    Like most Liberals, your confusing two different things. When Jesus told us not to judge, he did not mean that we should not practice moral discernment, that we should not call a spade a spade, or a sin a sin. He meant that we should not judge what a persons final state (heaven or hell) is going to be, because that is up to God, not us.

    naaska,

    “Christians always come across, especially on this forum, as bigoted & unable to comprehend that there may be a valid viewpoint other than their own”

    Thats amusing coming from you. On this forum, by far and away the most bigotry come from people like you, MNIJ, Big Bruv, Mikey and others who regularly spew bigotry at Christians and who demonstrate an inability to comprehend that there may be a valid viewpoint other than secula Liberalis.

    POT. KETTLE. BLACK.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  269. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    nasska – “winding them up gives the rest of us many hours of amusement.”

    Ha! I think you’re right. Where would we be without them?

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

    It would be nice to see Courage Wolf and some others in this thread stop being so bigoted towards Christians. After all, you’re always on at us for being intolerant. Shouldn’t it be a two way street?

    I have absolutely no problem with being bigoted towards Christians, just as I have no problem with being bigoted towards someone who is racist, or who is sexist, or who is homophobic (Christians fall into all three categories – hating Arabs, hating females, hating gays). The saddest thing about Christians is that instead of ever admitting they are wrong (meek and humble like Jesus commands) they would rather stand on their pedestals of self-righteousness and put themselves in God’s judgment seat telling people they’re going to Hell when in reality, Jesus says there are those who will call Him Lord that He will say: “I never knew you, be gone from Me.” Go to Google search and type in: “Why are Christians so”… And let Google fill in the rest. See what the common perception is. You’d think it’d be so loving, so compassionate, so kind, so virtuous… But these are not words you would describe people like Andrei or Lee or any of the other Christians here. The Google suggestions are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  271. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    Wow, Fletch, was that intentional deception or were you just unaware that the ridiculously over-the-top “Homosexual Agenda” was satire?

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

    Yahoo Answers works too:

    http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&biw=1366&bih=578&q=+site:answers.yahoo.com+why+are+christians+so

    Lee01 (1,212) Says:

    POT. KETTLE. BLACK.

    Why don’t you create a Yahoo Answers account Lee and go answer the questions those people have about Christians? Most of them are young people too who are probably searching. I have the feeling though that once you’ve given them your answers the only thing you’ll do is reinforce and reconfirm their question rather than helping them see the other side.

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

    Furthermore Ghandi once said he likes Christ but not Christians, but instead of accepting that there’s something really wrong with the way they are practicing Jesus’ teachings, people like you Lee try to reshape Jesus in your own image, saying that He would have crusaded on blogs against homosexuality as much as you did, and that all you are doing is exactly what Jesus would have done… Condemning people to Hell and what have you, etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  274. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Lee

    The meaning is clear. Leave the judging for the Judges. Show compassion and forgiveness, and focus on your own sin.

    “Do not judge, or you too will be judged” (Matthew 7:1)

    “Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn others, or it will all come back against you. Forgive others, and you will be forgiven.” (Luke 6:37)

    “Don’t speak evil one of another brothers. He that speaks evil of his brother, and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law, and judges the law.” (James 4:11)

    “Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.” (Romans 14:12-13)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  275. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    In the observable Natural Order, the basis for a healthy society is the family; Father, Mother, Children, Grandchildren. The family is the first social community, and the most important. Its preservation and protection is an absolute necessity to any civilisation. And in the family there is a natural hierachy of Parents and Children.

    These two observable facts, that the family is the first and central unit of any society, and that there is a natural hierarchy within the family, can be seen throughout nature.

    They can also be observed in every single human culture that has ever existed, and survived.

    The family as the center and foundation of society and heirarchy are the the core of the Natural Order.

    The foundational argument for “gay rights” then is based on a falshood, and provable lie.

    It is based on the abstract and unnatural idea of the iron law of equality.

    Equality in this sense does not exist anywhere in nature. It does not and has not existed anywhere in human society. Heirarchy is the natural state of things.

    It is a meaningless abstraction, like all Liberal dogma.

    Therefore the argument that people who choose to indulge in homosexual behaviour should be treated equally as everyone else, is based on a lie.

    It does not matter one whit why homosexuality occurs, or whether or not some animal species may engage in it. That proves nothing. All behaviours are not equal. Merely because some animals eat each other, does not mean this is a good thing for all animals to do, or human societies.

    There is therefore no logical, rational fact based argument to allow people who choose to indulge in homosexuality the right to marry or the right to adopt children. Equality is not logical or rational.

    There are on the other hand logical, rational based arguments not to do so.

    It undermines the natural family. Instead of the natural family being at the heart of society and all political and economic considereations, which is necessary for survival, it sidelines the natural family as just another “lifestyle choice”.

    It also endangers children. In every institution that male homosexuals have gained acces to in large numbers, pederasty has followed, from the Catholic Church to the Boy Scouts. This is a provable fact.

    Subjecting children to this, to what amounts to little more than a radical experiment foisted on society by a Liberal elite who are divorced from reality, is a monstrous miscarriage of justice. It is evil and selfish on the part of homosexuals AND those who support these changes.

    In any rational society, this threat to children and to the family would mean that those proposing it would be rounded up and expelled from that society, permanently. But we do not live in a rational society, we live in one ruled by the insane, by people who have filled their “minds”, and I use that term loosely, with irrational and unnatural drive.

    What is galling to me is the sheer hypocrisy of these people. At every turn morons like Weihana demand facts, rational arguments and proof from Christians concerning their beliefs.

    But his, and the rest of you (you know who you are) are rank hypocrites. As soon as some Liberal ideology like homosexual rights comes up, reason, evidence and nature go out the door in favour of your own “god” of liberal freedom, and your own “transcendent morality” of equality, despite the fact that they are ideological abstractions that cannot be observed anywhere in nature.

    New Zealand has never been and never will be an “egalitarian” nation. No such thing does or can exist. It is contrary to nature, and all arguments based on “equality” are also contrary to nature, to reason and to logic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  276. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Scott,

    Yes the meaning is clear, you just don’t get it. he did not mean we should stand around twiddling our thumbs when evil is occuring, he meant we should not judge a persons final state.

    I could just as easily tell Liberals to worry about their own shit, and stop foisting it onto society and the rest of us. If some deluded people want to engage in homosexuality, do it in their own homes and stop insisting that the rest of us have to agree and support it, or change thousand of years of natural law just to suit a tiny minority of perverts.

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    CW,

    “Condemning people to Hell and what have you”

    I am not condemning anyone to hell. I am calling a moral wrong a moral wrong. I don’t pretend to know anyones final state.

    “I have absolutely no problem with being bigoted towards Christians”

    Liberal hypocrisy at its best. Thankyou for proving my point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  277. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    A Libertarian argument against government enforced gay marriage.

    1. Marriage is not a privacy issue. Civil marriage is a public institution. Homosexual activists once demanded that the government stay out of their bedrooms. In attempting to legalize same-sex marriage, they are now inviting the government into their bedrooms.

    2. Homosexual marriage is not an issue of individual rights. Everyone already has a right to marry, but also faces restrictions upon whom they may marry. No one is permitted to marry a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or, in most states, a person of the same sex. These are not restrictions upon the right to marry; they are part of the definition of marriage.

    There also are compelling reasons for libertarians to oppose the redefinition of marriage:

    1. Freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened. In the wake of same-sex marriage, we have already seen religious nonprofits being told to compromise their principles or go out of business.

    2. Economic freedom would be undermined. Same-sex marriage would compel every employer, including the government, to give same-sex couples benefits identical to those of heterosexual couples.

    3. The rights of children would be undermined. Children have a natural right to be raised by the mother and father whose union produced them. Research shows that children who are raised by their own mother and father are happier, healthier and more prosperous than children raised in other family structures. The state should not affirm the deliberate creation of permanently motherless or fatherless homes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  278. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    The Libertarian Case Against Gay Marriage

    By Justin Raimondo

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/the-libertarian-case-against-gay-marriage/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  279. mikenmild (10,766 comments) says:

    Lee
    Those aren’t actually libertarian arguments. Why don’t you check out Ron Paul’s argument on same-sex marriage – you were quite supportive of him yesterday.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  280. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “Those aren’t actually libertarian arguments”

    Of course they are. Justin Raimondo’s libertarian credentials are impeccable.

    Ron Pauls arguments are also reasonable (unlike the mindless drivel posted by Liberals here), but that does not mean he is right. He may be, but there needs to be far more debate about this and far less jackbooted statism from homo’s and their allies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  281. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Lee – “Yes the meaning is clear, you just don’t get it.”

    Yes I do. It is as plain to me as is the evidence of your latent anger and pride, printed in black and white in your exchanges with other bloggers.

    You do not forgive. You lack compassion. You harbour hate and resentment. You are abusive to, and disrespectful of those who disagree with you. You ignore the facets of the bible that you consider inconvenient. You argue with emotion and are too proud to admit error.

    Yes, I am judging you, but I’ve given up on trying to abide by the rules you purport to uphold.

    Worst of all, you make Jesus out to be an asshole. I understand him to represent *Love*. Please remember that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  282. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    A Libertarian argument against government enforced gay marriage.

    Government-enforced gay marriage? The Government not banning some people from legal equality is “enforcement”? I wonder if these arguments work against “government enforced interracial marriage” too.

    1. Marriage is not a privacy issue. Civil marriage is a public institution. Homosexual activists once demanded that the government stay out of their bedrooms. In attempting to legalize same-sex marriage, they are now inviting the government into their bedrooms.

    No, they’re inviting the Government to recognise their rights equal to other citizens.

    2. Homosexual marriage is not an issue of individual rights. Everyone already has a right to marry, but also faces restrictions upon whom they may marry. No one is permitted to marry a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or, in most states, a person of the same sex. These are not restrictions upon the right to marry; they are part of the definition of marriage.

    Children can’t consent. Blood relatives pose genetic concerns and in some cases questions around consent (grooming dangers), but potentially shouldn’t be the Government’s business either. Not being able to marry someone who’s already married is also not the Government’s business, so long as everyone involved is a fully aware consenting adult and there are no unfair financial advantages to polygamist marriages.

    Your religion’s definition of marriage should not be forced on everyone regardless of their own religion or lack thereof.

    There also are compelling reasons for libertarians to oppose the redefinition of marriage:

    1. Freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened. In the wake of same-sex marriage, we have already seen religious nonprofits being told to compromise their principles or go out of business.

    Churches don’t have to be forced to perform same-sex marriages for same-sex couples to have equal rights. Churches shouldn’t be forced to perform interracial marriages if it’s against their religious conscience either.

    2. Economic freedom would be undermined. Same-sex marriage would compel every employer, including the government, to give same-sex couples benefits identical to those of heterosexual couples.

    Yes, just as interracial marriage compels every employer to give interracial couples benefits identical to those of intraracial couples.

    3. The rights of children would be undermined. Children have a natural right to be raised by the mother and father whose union produced them. Research shows that children who are raised by their own mother and father are happier, healthier and more prosperous than children raised in other family structures. The state should not affirm the deliberate creation of permanently motherless or fatherless homes.

    It’s not the state’s place to be sculpting ideal families through force and inequality before the law. If you want a state that tries to force people into its idea of the ideal family, go back in time to Soviet Russia.

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

    “Why are Christians so crazy for abstinence, condemn anyone who has premarital sex and tells them they need to repent ‘cos they’re living in sin, yet when an unwed Christian girl has a baby, she’s a fucking hero? Basically, whenever a teenage Christian girl gets knocked up and has the baby, she will be praised for not having an abortion.”

    This perfectly explains people like Lee. Basically they’re not against homosexuality because they think it’s a sin and that God condemns it on biological grounds (such as not being able to procreate)… But rather because they are homophobic. They don’t like the idea of two men being in love with one another. In the above example, Christians are actually turned on by the idea that two straight couples could be having sex.

    This is why many Christians watch porn, for example.

    They condemn atheists for having premarital sex because they hate that atheists don’t believe in God like they do, yet they take great care not to condemn Christians having babies after having premarital sex in order to not offend them. The same level of care and compassion should be shown to homosexuals as to the Christian girl who has a baby out of wedlock, but because homosexuals are not Christians, they will condemn them.

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

    Scott Chris (1,848) Says:
    October 7th, 2011 at 10:27 am

    Lee – “Yes the meaning is clear, you just don’t get it.”

    Yes I do. It is as plain to me as is the evidence of your latent anger and pride, printed in black and white in your exchanges with other bloggers.

    You do not forgive. You lack compassion. You harbour hate and resentment. You are abusive to, and disrespectful of those who disagree with you. You ignore the facets of the bible that you consider inconvenient. You argue with emotion and are too proud to admit error.

    Yes, I am judging you, but I’ve given up on trying to abide by the rules you purport to uphold.

    Worst of all, you make Jesus out to be an asshole. I understand him to represent *Love*. Please remember that.

    This man deserves a DB. Best post of this thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  285. mikenmild (10,766 comments) says:

    Justin Raimondo may be a libertarian, but the article you linked to didn’t provide a libertarian argument. On, I get wehat he was saying – that the government should not intrude on private relationships. But that’s an argument against any state-sanctioned marriage, not just gay marriage.
    Most libertarians would sign up to:
    - No laws regulating consensual sex between adults
    - No laws prohibiting unions between members of the same sex
    - Extending to homosexuals all legal rights enjoyed by partners in heterosexual relationships.
    - Recognising a homosexual parent’s right for custody of his or her natural child, and of the child to choose the homosexual parent as guardian.
    - Allowing homosexuals to adopt children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  286. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “No, they’re inviting the Government to recognise their rights equal to other citizens.”

    Read my post above. There is no such thing as equality. It is a meaningless abstraction that has no basis in the Natural Order.

    “Your religion’s definition of marriage should not be forced on everyone regardless of their own religion or lack thereof”

    Yes it should.

    “Churches don’t have to be forced to perform same-sex marriages for same-sex couples to have equal rights.”

    Then why are gay rights groups throughout the world demanding exactly that?

    “It’s not the state’s place to be sculpting ideal families through force and inequality before the law.”

    The natural family is not an “ideal” it is natural. It is the states role to protect it, but otherwise leave it alone. It is NOT the states place to be sculpting, out of thin air, all new definitions of family and marriage that are based on irrational and unnatural ideological abstractions like “equality” and “homosexual rights”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  287. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    It always becomes apparent on threads like this that most people really have very little understanding of what real bigotry actually is.

    For those blinded by left wing social progressive ideology, a bigot is obviously simply anyone that is in disagreement with them or their ideology.

    So convinced they are of their ‘rightness’ that they condemn all opposition to hell, oh, I mean…you know what I mean.

    Yes, the reason these people try to bait the Christians so much is because they are fighting for exactly the same territory, they actually lust after the same social control and are envious of the ‘church’.

    It fascinates me how they repeatedly swoop into threads like this with an air of superiority and righteous indignation and then have the damned cheek to accuse the Christians of the same thing!

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

    It always becomes apparent on threads like this that most people really have very little understanding of what real judmentalism actually is.

    For those blinded by Christian ideology, a judgmental person is obviously simply anyone that is in disagreement with them or their ideology.

    So convinced they are of their ‘rightness’ that they condemn all opposition to hell, oh, I mean…you know what I mean.

    Yes, the reason these people try to attack homosexuals so much is because they are fighting for exactly the same territory, they actually lust after the same social control and are envious of the ‘gays’.

    It fascinates me how they repeatedly swoop into threads like this with an air of superiority and righteous indignation and then have the damned cheek to accuse the homosexuals of the same thing!

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

    Lee01 (1,220) Says:
    October 7th, 2011 at 9:52 am

    In the observable Natural Order, the basis for a healthy society is the family; Father, Mother, Children, Grandchildren. The family is the first social community, and the most important. Its preservation and protection is an absolute necessity to any civilisation. And in the family there is a natural hierachy of Parents and Children.

    Care to explain why God approved of the following relationships and cite where in the Bible your basis for a healthy society family structure is given in the Bible?

    Nuclear family – man and woman – Genesis 2:24 – wives subordinate to their husbands, interfaith marriages forbidden, marriages generally arranged not based on romantic love, bride who could not prove her virginity was stoned to death.

    Man and wives and concubines – Abraham (2 concubines), Gideon (1), Nahor (1), Jacob (1), Eliphaz (1), Gideon again (several), Caleb (2), Manassah (1), Solomon (300), Belshazzar (several).

    Man and woman and woman’s property – Genesis 16 – man could acquire his wife’s property including her slaves.

    Man and woman and woman and woman (polygamy) – Lamech (2 wives), Esau (3), Jacob (2), Ashur (2), Gideon (several), Elkanah (2), David (dozens), Solomon (700), Rehaboam (3), Abijah (14).

    Man and brother’s widow – Genesis 38:6-10 – widow who had not borne a son required to marry her brother in law, must submit sexually to her new husband.

    Rapist and his victim – Deuteronomy 22:28, 29 – virgin who is raped must marry her rapist, rapist must pay victim’s father 50 pieces of silver for property loss.

    Male soldier and prisoner of war – Numbers 31, Deuteronomy 21 – under Moses’ command, Israelites kill every Midianite man, woman and child, save for the virgins who are taken as spoils or war, virgins must submit sexually to their new owners.

    Male slave and female slave – Exodus 21:4 – slave owner could assign female slaves to his male slaves, female slaves must submit sexually to their new husbands.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  290. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Scott Chris,

    “Yes I do. It is as plain to me as is the evidence of your latent anger and pride, printed in black and white in your exchanges with other bloggers.”

    As opposed to their exchanges with me?

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    “You do not forgive. You lack compassion.”

    On the contrary, I forgive people everyday, and in my own life I do show people compassion. Much of what little spare time I have is involved in helping others. As you do not know me personaly, your not in a position to make that kind of judgement, based solely on the often fierce arguments here.

    “You harbour hate and resentment.”

    Neither. I am simply opposed to evil.

    “You are abusive to, and disrespectful of those who disagree with you.”

    Normally I am not. But I have been subject to an immense amount of abuse here and sometimes I fight back. You yourself said that if you don’t fight back sometimes people will think your a pushover.

    “You ignore the facets of the bible that you consider inconvenient.”

    Not at all. I ignore Liberal distortions of the Bible.

    ” You argue with emotion and are too proud to admit error”

    I argue with reason based on revelation and the natural order, and I admit error when I’m actuallly wrong, not when arrogant and proud and hypocritical Liberals demand it to suit their ideological fantasies.

    Scott, I like you, bit I think your the one letting emotion rule your response to me. If you had been following my posts you would have read that I’m reading Hans Herman Hoppe, an Anarcho-capitalist.

    As a result of that I have admitted that I have been wrong about free market capitalism and that I was wrong in my estimation of the rightness of Distributism.

    In short, I have admitted error and radically changed one of my long cherished views based on someone elses good arguments.

    Does that sound like your caricature of my in your post?

    I’m sorry that my view on this issue does not agree with yours, but that is my view. It is not arroagance. Its difference. Perhaps I was way too harsh with Weihana, but he and some of the others here treat me like shit every time I post, on virtually any sibject. That gets to a guy after a while. I agree that it shouldnt, but I am a sinner.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  291. nasska (10,696 comments) says:

    Shunda

    This thread started out with DPF giving a summary of the stances of various political parties to the questions of gay adoption & gay marriage.

    It’s amazing that you have been reduced to a state of shock and/or fascination by people who hold libertarian opinions rather than religious ones. You do provide a clue when you state: “they actually lust after the same social control and are envious of the ‘church’.”

    It would appear that your fears are driven by the threat of competition to the churches’ monopoly on mind control rather than the threat to the souls of the godly. I feel that you should be acknowledging the benefits of this competition & welcoming the opportunity to tune up your approach to spreading the ‘good word’.

    After all it works in the grocery trade.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  292. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Lets sum this debate for what it is really all about.

    Human rights.

    Once upon a time there was a discrepancy regarding the legal status of homosexual relationships, this was not fair.

    legislation was passed giving full rights to gay couples to have their union recognised as of equal legal status to any other relationship this legislation is open to all genders and sexual orientations as a contemporary alternative to traditional marriage and is equal to it in every way.

    The human rights issue was completely resolved with this legislation.

    And what happens next? Gay activists demand the marriage tradition as well, requiring the marriage institution to be redefined, any heterosexuals that object are ruthlessly attacked and described as bigots and intolerant’s that hate humanity, freedom, and human rights.

    To me, it is very clear who the intolerant bigots are, the attitude of these gay activists should disgust all people concerned about real human rights issues, as these people are making an absolute mockery of legitimate human rights.

    The adoption issue is more tricky, as technically there is no reason a homosexual couple couldn’t raise a healthy child, but as others have pointed out, short of making adoption like a pet store for kids, heterosexual couples are usually going to be the best choice for a predominately heterosexual population.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  293. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “It’s amazing that you have been reduced to a state of shock and/or fascination by people who hold libertarian opinions rather than religious ones. ”

    You mean Liberal views, not Libertarian. Libertarians would hold that the State should stick to national defense and not indulge in inventing new definitions of morality and family out of thin air.

    A libertarian may argue that the state should not criminalise the acts of consenting adults, but that is irellevent to this debate as we do not live in a libertarian society, but in a Liberal State that holds massive power over peoples lives and uses “human rights” laws to violate the right to voluntary association.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  294. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    I think everything that can be said has been said on this issue. I’m going to stop posting on this thread and move on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  295. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Shunda

    This thread started out with DPF giving a summary of the stances of various political parties to the questions of gay adoption & gay marriage.

    It’s amazing that you have been reduced to a state of shock and/or fascination by people who hold libertarian opinions rather than religious ones. You do provide a clue when you state: “they actually lust after the same social control and are envious of the ‘church’.”

    I have not made a single reference to Godly authority or made a Christian argument, I challenge you to show where I have.

    It would appear that your fears are driven by the threat of competition to the churches’ monopoly on mind control rather than the threat to the souls of the godly.

    Ha! Ha haa ha!! yeah, an institution that I escaped from with a tremendous amount of trauma and heartache, I couldn’t give a rats arse about organised religion and it’s continued influence in it’s current form.

    You’re funny! :)

    I feel that you should be acknowledging the benefits of this competition & welcoming the opportunity to tune up your approach to spreading the ‘good word’.

    And I reckon libertarian arseholes are exploiting the resources of this planet in an unsustainable way and have lead us to the brink of global economic collapse, they are also now promoting selfish social policy which is why you fit in so well with the radical gay activists.

    After all it works in the grocery trade.

    Well yes, we all get arse fu@ked by the supermarkets too, so good analogy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  296. nasska (10,696 comments) says:

    Shunda

    Fortunately we’ll all hopefully live to scrap it out another day. May your God go with you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  297. RRM (9,478 comments) says:

    The Green suggestion makes a lot of sense IMHO. Govt issues one very matter-of-fact record of a relationship, akin to an IRD number and nothing more.

    You are free to embellish it with whatever creator-worship rituals take your fancy, go for your life. Choose the creator spirit whose prejudices best match your own…

    But I see no need for the Govt to accord the christian marriage ritual with any special status that any of the other competing quaint pagan rituals don’t enjoy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  298. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    “No, they’re inviting the Government to recognise their rights equal to other citizens.”

    Read my post above. There is no such thing as equality. It is a meaningless abstraction that has no basis in the Natural Order.

    You know exactly what equal treatment before the law means.

    “Your religion’s definition of marriage should not be forced on everyone regardless of their own religion or lack thereof”

    Yes it should.

    Not in a democracy that values freedom of religion. If you want a theocracy, move to Iran.

    “Churches don’t have to be forced to perform same-sex marriages for same-sex couples to have equal rights.”

    Then why are gay rights groups throughout the world demanding exactly that?

    They can demand whatever they like. I’m arguing for equal adoption rights.

    “It’s not the state’s place to be sculpting ideal families through force and inequality before the law.”

    The natural family is not an “ideal” it is natural. It is the states role to protect it, but otherwise leave it alone. It is NOT the states place to be sculpting, out of thin air, all new definitions of family and marriage that are based on irrational and unnatural ideological abstractions like “equality” and “homosexual rights”.

    It is not the state’s role to protect your idea of family. Don’t imagine you’re bringing up a “libertarian argument” while claiming the state should be involving itself so heavily in interfering with how people live. You can have all the definitions of marriage you want, so long as there are equal rights before the law, and that includes adoption rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  299. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda – “It always becomes apparent on threads like this that most people really have very little understanding of what real bigotry actually is.”

    I agree. So how would you define “bigotry”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  300. mikenmild (10,766 comments) says:

    RRM
    Agreed. There is no reason for the state to regulate marriage at all. It could merely recognise relationships.

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

    Lee01 (1,224) Says:
    October 7th, 2011 at 10:50 am

    Not at all. I ignore Liberal distortions of the Bible.

    I think everything that can be said has been said on this issue. I’m going to stop posting on this thread and move on.

    How convenient that you’re leaving the argument just as I asked you to explain your definition of ‘natural orders of society’ based on the structures of family in the Bible in my 10:45 comment. In case you missed it:

    Courage Wolf (444) Says:
    October 7th, 2011 at 10:45 am

    Lee01 (1,220) Says:
    October 7th, 2011 at 9:52 am

    In the observable Natural Order, the basis for a healthy society is the family; Father, Mother, Children, Grandchildren. The family is the first social community, and the most important. Its preservation and protection is an absolute necessity to any civilisation. And in the family there is a natural hierachy of Parents and Children.

    Care to explain why God approved of the following relationships and cite where in the Bible your basis for a healthy society family structure is given in the Bible?

    Nuclear family – man and woman – Genesis 2:24 – wives subordinate to their husbands, interfaith marriages forbidden, marriages generally arranged not based on romantic love, bride who could not prove her virginity was stoned to death.

    Man and wives and concubines – Abraham (2 concubines), Gideon (1), Nahor (1), Jacob (1), Eliphaz (1), Gideon again (several), Caleb (2), Manassah (1), Solomon (300), Belshazzar (several).

    Man and woman and woman’s property – Genesis 16 – man could acquire his wife’s property including her slaves.

    Man and woman and woman and woman (polygamy) – Lamech (2 wives), Esau (3), Jacob (2), Ashur (2), Gideon (several), Elkanah (2), David (dozens), Solomon (700), Rehaboam (3), Abijah (14).

    Man and brother’s widow – Genesis 38:6-10 – widow who had not borne a son required to marry her brother in law, must submit sexually to her new husband.

    Rapist and his victim – Deuteronomy 22:28, 29 – virgin who is raped must marry her rapist, rapist must pay victim’s father 50 pieces of silver for property loss.

    Male soldier and prisoner of war – Numbers 31, Deuteronomy 21 – under Moses’ command, Israelites kill every Midianite man, woman and child, save for the virgins who are taken as spoils or war, virgins must submit sexually to their new owners.

    Male slave and female slave – Exodus 21:4 – slave owner could assign female slaves to his male slaves, female slaves must submit sexually to their new husbands.

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

    Lee01: Normally I am not. But I have been subject to an immense amount of abuse here and sometimes I fight back. You yourself said that if you don’t fight back sometimes people will think your a pushover.

    Pfft, stop playing the victim card here. In every single thread here on Kiwiblog it’s always the Christians who are the first to throw the stones. Take this thread for example – it begins with:

    East Wellington Superhero (353) Says:
    October 6th, 2011 at 10:41 am

    When you stick male genitalia up a man’s anus, it does not make a baby. But hey, let’s let two men adopt children so we can pretend it’s all normal.

    The perfect embodiment of Christ’s values. Why don’t you go door-knocking or street-preaching by starting with that line: “When you stick male genitalia up a man’s anus…” Instead of the usual: “Hi there, do you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ?”

    What a man speaks is the voice of his heart overflowing. So why don’t you go give a sermon and begin with the way you discuss gay issues here on Kiwiblog?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  303. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    What happened Courage?? which Church screwed you over?? you seem to have encountered some of the worst aspects of the faith somewhere along the line, or are you just as mean as those you are pointing the finger at here??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  304. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Lee01 (1,224) Says:
    October 7th, 2011 at 10:16 am

    The Libertarian Case Against Gay Marriage

    By Justin Raimondo

    “Then, suddenly, they are legally married—or, in certain states, considered married under the common law. This changes the relationship, and not for the better. For now the property of the breadwinner is not his or her own: half of it belongs to the stay-at-home. Before when they argued, money was never an issue: now, when the going gets rough, the threat of divorce—and the specter of alimony—hangs over the relationship, and the mere possibility casts its dark shadow over what had once been a sunlit field.”

    ————————————

    Damn Lee, I am genuinely surprised that you are advocating this line or argument. You think it was a “sunlit field” when one partner owns all the wealth while the stay at home partner who cooks the food, cleans the house and picks up after everyone gets absolutely nothing out of the relationship and is bound to the dictates of their partner for lack of money and lack of entitlement in the relationship. What a selfish attitude to have that you would consider the person who picks up after you to be entitled to nothing.

    Lee01, have you told your wife (if you have one) you think she should get nothing? What does she think of this? Or is she one of those traditional ladies, obedient and submissive to her master? Maybe Saudi Arabia is the place for you Lee. Women are put in their place over there.

    Me on the other hand I think if one partner stays home and does all the house work and forgoes their own career for the sake of the relationship then they should be entitled to half, and any “man” who thinks otherwise is a selfish prick who deserves to die alone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  305. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Lee01,

    2. Homosexual marriage is not an issue of individual rights. Everyone already has a right to marry, but also faces restrictions upon whom they may marry. No one is permitted to marry a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or, in most states, a person of the same sex. These are not restrictions upon the right to marry; they are part of the definition of marriage.

    —————————–

    So if the definition of marriage included the restriction that people of differing races couldn’t marry then that wouldn’t be a matter of individual rights eh Lee01? Just a definition eh? After all traditionally interracial marriage was taboo and you are big on tradition.

    How can you be so stupid as to argue these ridiculous points that have such obvious holes in them? Your argument can be summed up as:

    “I hate homo’s because the sky father told me to in his book of fairy tales”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  306. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “In every single thread here on Kiwiblog it’s always the Christians who are the first to throw the stones.”

    Utter crap.

    “How convenient that you’re leaving the argument just as I asked you to explain your definition of ‘natural orders of society’ based on the structures of family in the Bible in my 10:45 comment.”

    Get a theology degree. Major in Biblical theology. When you have done that I’ll talk to you about the Bible. Until then its a waste of time.

    Weihana,

    “Me on the other hand I think”

    Theres you first mistake. Your not thinking, your regurgitating mindless Liberal propaganda.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  307. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Lee01,

    “Research shows that children who are raised by their own mother and father are happier, healthier and more prosperous than children raised in other family structures.”

    Many references have been made to “research” but nowhere has anyone actually provided any details or links to this research. I have asked twice for it but nothing. Perhaps because you are just making shit up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  308. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Weihana – “they should be entitled to half”

    Not sure about that. Perhaps they should be entitled to what they forwent, less what they would have spent anyway plus sharing the cost of rearing the kids and repaying what it cost to “keep” them. That sounds fairer to me.

    Still waiting for Shunda’s definition of “Bigotry”….. perhaps he’s reluctant to define it for some reason?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  309. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “So if the definition of marriage included the restriction that people of differing races couldn’t marry then that wouldn’t be a matter of individual rights”

    No.

    “How can you be so stupid as to argue these ridiculous points that have such obvious holes in them? ”

    The holes are in your mind.

    “Your argument can be summed up as”

    My argument, my ACTUAL argument, as opposed to your lies, is that Tradition, thousands of years of it general, and fifteen hundred years of Chritian Tradition, is a better guide to right and wrong than irrational, unnatural abstract ideological drivel spouted by Liberals who pull their ideas out of their asses.

    Where in nature do you see equality?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  310. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “Perhaps because you are just making shit up.”

    Perhaps your just too lazy to do your own research. And be honest for a change, it would not make one bit of difference to you if thousands of research papers could be produced right now to prove it, would it? You do not care about evidence or truth, like all Liberals you only care abour abstract ideology that has no basis in reality.

    You would support homosexual rights even if all the evidence in the world showed it was bad for society. Because your Liberal dogma tells you to. Evidence and reality do not come into it on any subject with Liberals.

    Thats the truth. Your making shit up. Shit about equality. Shit about homosexual rights. You have pulled this shit out of your asse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  311. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Scott Chris (1,850) Says:
    October 7th, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    Weihana – “they should be entitled to half”

    Not sure about that.

    ————————————

    True that’s an oversimplification which doesn’t take into account what each partner brought to the relationship to begin with. But whatever is earned during the relationship I generally think that should be divided equally in the absence of a prenuptial agreement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  312. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    My argument, my ACTUAL argument, as opposed to your lies, is that Tradition, thousands of years of it general, and fifteen hundred years of Chritian Tradition, is a better guide to right and wrong than irrational, unnatural abstract ideological drivel spouted by Liberals who pull their ideas out of their asses.

    Where in nature do you see equality?

    Where in nature do you see computers? Or democracy? Or religion? Nature’s not so great. I’ll take equality and liberty over nature.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  313. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Ryan,

    “You know exactly what equal treatment before the law means.”

    Yes. Nothing. Its based on a lie. Equality of any sort, including equality before the law, is meaningless and impossible in practice.
    Does a child have the exactly the same rights as an adult? No. Children cannot drive cars.

    Legal equality, even for adults, is a legal fiction based on a Liberal lie.

    There is no equality in nature, there is not now and never has been and never will be equality in human society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  314. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Lee01 (1,227) Says:
    October 7th, 2011 at 12:44 pm

    “Perhaps because you are just making shit up.”

    Perhaps your just too lazy to do your own research. And be honest for a change, it would not make one bit of difference to you if thousands of research papers could be produced right now to prove it, would it? You do not care about evidence or truth, like all Liberals you only care abour abstract ideology that has no basis in reality.

    ———————-

    You’re the one asserting such research to exist therefore the onus is on you to back up your own statements. Just one paper would be a good start.

    Also if you think that I’m close minded then why refer to research in the first place in a lame attempt to try and bolster your argument? Indeed why are you arguing at all? In actual fact you’re just upset you are being called on your assertions and asked to back it up, which apparently you can’t. Although I’m sure after ten minutes of Google you’ll eventually find some crackpot Christian “research”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  315. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “Where in nature do you see computers?”

    Computers are made out of nature, they are therefore natural in their basic state.

    “Or democracy? ”

    Nowhere. Democracy is a fraudulent and destructive notion.

    “Or religion?”

    Everywhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  316. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Lee01 (1,228) Says:
    October 7th, 2011 at 12:41 pm

    “So if the definition of marriage included the restriction that people of differing races couldn’t marry then that wouldn’t be a matter of individual rights”

    No.

    ———————–

    Oh good. Lee01 has outed himself as a racist. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  317. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “Although I’m sure after ten minutes of Google you’ll eventually find some crackpot Christian “research”.”

    Which proves my point. You will not accept ANY evidence that does not support your view. Your lying when you ask for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  318. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    Yes. Nothing. Its based on a lie. Equality of any sort, including equality before the law, is meaningless and impossible in practice.
    Does a child have the exactly the same rights as an adult? No. Children cannot drive cars.

    Legal equality, even for adults, is a legal fiction based on a Liberal lie.

    There is no equality in nature, there is not now and never has been and never will be equality in human society.

    You are quite wrong. Equality before the law is not meaningless.

    If Christian churches were made to pay taxes while other religions remained exempt, would you complain or recognise that equal treatment is an impossible illusion? If you complained, what would your complaint be? Mine would be: “It’s not fair. All religions should be treated equally before the law.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  319. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “Oh good. Lee01 has outed himself as a racist.”

    Racism is the belief in racial superiority which I dont believe in.

    You on the other hand are an apologist for baby torturers. I’ll take being called a racist anyday rather than be known as someone who thinks torturing babies is a lifestyle choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  320. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “If Christian churches were made to pay taxes while other religions remained exempt, would you complain or recognise that equal treatment is an impossible illusion?”

    I would not complain on the basis of equality, i would claim that it should be the other way around.

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

    Utter crap.

    Yes, that’s what’s being pulled out of…

    Your ass.

    Funny how looking through this thread it’s the Christians who have been swearing and having vile words pour out of their hearts far more than the atheists.

    Get a theology degree. Major in Biblical theology. When you have done that I’ll talk to you about the Bible. Until then its a waste of time.

    Which of course if your default response when you are asked to explain anomalies in the Bible, such as why God approved of relationships that did not fit into your nuclear family definition. Way to once again avoid the debate when it doesn’t suit you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  322. Aredhel777 (278 comments) says:

    Predictable that a thread on homosexuality would turn into a bunch of people bashing Christianity and a bunch of Christians getting wound up………

    I have only one more contribution to this thread to make. ‘Tolerance’ is a secular term which arose out of relativism and the assumption that no action is objectively wrong. Furthermore, in a relativist’s worldview, differences between people have become a matter of opinion (such as the differences between men and women.) Thus, everyone is expected not just to accept but to celebrate other people’s differences. Case in point: homosexuality. We’re “not allowed” to believe that homosexual sex is wrong, because nothing is wrong.

    This is not a Christian view, contrary to what has been argued in this thread. Christians believe in objective truth. Jesus said ‘I am the way, the *truth* and the life.’ God himself is our standard of objective morality, because he is perfectly good. Therefore, we approach issues such as homosexuality from an entirely different perspective. There is no notion of ‘tolerance’ in Christianity in the modern sense that I have just spelled out, but there is the teaching of unconditional love. Unconditional love is not telling something that everything they do is right, if it is contrary to what the Bible says. Rather, it’s a deep and genuine desire for their wellbeing, being kind to them, accepting them, doing whatever we can for their betterment. And of course sharing Jesus with them, but I don’t think a lot of liberals understand that our motivations for sharing Jesus are really love. Jesus loved people, but he was not ‘tolerant’. He called out evil for what it was. He described the Pharisees as ‘snakes’ and ‘vipers’ and ‘children of the devil’, and drove the corrupt moneylenders out of the Jewish Temple with a whip. I could not believe in a good God who did not take a strong stance on evil.

    Jesus tells me to love our enemies, so I love even the sorts of people who bash Christianity in this thread. I also love homosexuals, but I cannot condone same-sex relationships because they are contrary to Scripture.

    [/rant]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  323. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    I would not complain on the basis of equality, i would claim that it should be the other way around.

    I see. Okay, well, you’re approaching this from such a radically different set of values that there appears to be no common ground upon which to meet and evaluate. If I understand you correctly, you want New Zealand to be a theocratic state where state legislation and force is used to promote your religion’s values and views, with no thought to equality, liberty or democracy as values themselves.

    Do you hope to see New Zealand become the sort of state you envisage? How would you work towards realising that goal?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  324. Aredhel777 (278 comments) says:

    “If I understand you correctly, you want New Zealand to be a theocratic state where state legislation and force is used to promote your religion’s values and views, with no thought to equality, liberty or democracy as values themselves.”

    No, we don’t. A common caricature and a false one. The whole point of the Protestant Reformation was to get rid of Catholic theocracy, which was a bad thing as even the Catholics have come to acknowledge.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  325. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    No, we don’t. A common caricature and a false one. The whole point of the Protestant Reformation was to get rid of Catholic theocracy, which was a bad thing as even the Catholics have come to acknowledge.

    I only meant Lee, not Christians in general.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  326. nasska (10,696 comments) says:

    I wonder if Lee01 as a master of theology is able to confirm Aredhel777′s assertion that tolerance is an alien concept in Christianity.

    As a layman it seems to me to be about the only theme so far argued successfully by the xtians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  327. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Ryan,

    “I see. Okay, well, you’re approaching this from such a radically different set of values that there appears to be no common ground upon which to meet and evaluate.”

    Agreed. Which is why these debates are often so frsutrating and fruitless for all.

    “If I understand you correctly, you want New Zealand to be a theocratic state where state legislation and force is used to promote your religion’s values and views”

    No, I don’t. I want a radically decentralised minarchist state (or possibly no state at all, I’m still evaluating Hans Herman Hoppes arguments on that front) under the British Crown, and in which Christians are completely free to create their own communities, and liberals free to create theirs, without either group forcing statism upon the other.

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

    Why am I not surprised that Lee refuses to address the random structures of families in the Bible (Solomon, Abraham, etc) because they do not fit into his argument that the traditional Christian family of one man and one wife and children is the natural order of things?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  329. Aredhel777 (278 comments) says:

    ‘I wonder if Lee01 as a master of theology is able to confirm Aredhel777′s assertion that tolerance is an alien concept in Christianity.

    As a layman it seems to me to be about the only theme so far argued successfully by the xtians.’

    It’s “Christian”, actually. Not “xtian”. And I confess that I don’t have a degree in theology. I have read a lot about atheism and relativism though. The theology departments in modern day universities are crap anyway.

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

    Aredhel777 (64) Says:
    October 7th, 2011 at 12:59 pm

    Tolerance has come to mean to the secular not what it was, Like all things in this culture war we are in with them, they reframe the meaning to suit their worldview and aims.

    Now it (Tolerance) means we must shut down our objections and aid and abet them in whatever it is they claim we are intolerant of.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  331. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    CW,

    “Which of course if your default response when you are asked to explain anomalies in the Bible,”

    On the contrary I have explained these so-called “anomoloies” many times. But people like you are not interested in any explanation, not matter how reasonable. Your just trolling.

    You cannot understand anything in the Bible until you understand and have some working knowledge of its narrative structure.

    Saying that God approves of polygamy is like saying Shakespear aproved of youth suicide because its in Romeo and Juliet.

    In short, read Biblical theology first. Until then I’m wasting my time responding to Biblically illiterate trolls.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  332. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    No, I don’t. I want a radically decentralised minarchist state (or possibly no state at all, I’m still evaluating Hans Herman Hoppes arguments on that front) under the British Crown, and in which Christians are completely free to create their own communities, and liberals free to create theirs, without either group forcing statism upon the other.

    But you said you wanted Christian churches to be tax-exempt and all other religious organisations paying tax. You want the state to enforce Christian values at the expense of equality, which you don’t value.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  333. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Aredhel777 – “‘Tolerance’ is a secular term which arose out of relativism and the assumption that no action is objectively wrong.”

    Not quite. Descriptive relativism is not a philosophy of living. It is a way of describing things within their own set of contextual rules. Liberalism is something else entirely.

    Liberalism is *not* objective, even in its own view of itself, just as Christianity is not objective in the eyes of a Liberal.

    Christians and Liberals have both come up with formulae to address the problems associated with conflicts of self-interest.

    You may have noticed that I have just used a morally relative description.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  334. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “I wonder if Lee01 as a master of theology is able to confirm Aredhel777′s assertion that tolerance is an alien concept in Christianity”

    Secular liberal tolerance, which is not really tolerance at all, as the response of “homophobia!” to anyone dares to speak against it proves, is alien to Christianity. But secular liberal tolerance is not tolerance, it is virulently intolerant of any view except secular liberalism, as this forum repeatedly shows.

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

    There is a lot anachronistic conjecture going on here about what the past was like and the nature of Catholic/Christian ‘theocratic’ societies (which allusions to are, I think, being overblown). 1000 years ago, nobody read books or wrote letters or travelled very from home, apart from the wealthy, the peculiar, and clergy. So of course the Church played a large role in human enterprise. Regardless of whether you think Christianity (I’d argue Catholic Christianity) is right or wrong about the nature of reality/truth, we shouldn’t be surprised to see churchfolk influencing, or being, statesmen. Shit, it was the Churches who decided to build schools to educate children and build the universities (as was the case in New Zealand as late as the 19th century). They just did because that was the reality. The projection of today’s urban living, modern Western public education, ability to communicate, production levels, and human and goods mobility, back 1000 years shows a lack of insight by those you refer to ‘theocracies’ of the past. Dare I say an arrogance of what modern secular man has ‘achieved’.

    And the allusion that humanity lived in some dark age under clerics some time long ago is a bit woolly. Yeah, they didn’t have penicillin or mechanised production of crops – but they didn’t have nuclear warfare, the holocaust, the massive death-toll under communism and the modern worship of consumption. How do we know that 500 years from now historians won’t look back and call the 20th century the ‘dark-ages’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  336. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “But you said you wanted Christian churches to be tax-exempt and all other religious organisations paying tax.”

    No, I said that given the example you gave me, that would be my preference. But it would not be my ideal political system.

    Traditionalism is incompatible with modern statism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  337. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    No, I said that given the example you gave me, that would be my preference. But it is would not be my ideal political system.

    But you would not complain in terms of equality about Christian churches being taxed while other religions were tax-exempt?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  338. Johnboy (15,034 comments) says:

    I think it’s a great idea for male homosexuals to marry and adopt children.

    When their kids married the lucky spouse would never have to suffer having a mother in law. :)

    On the same grounds lesbians should be totally barred from both marriage and adoption. :)

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

    I don’t mind if Churches are tax exempt for their non-charity work – which I’d say is 3/5 of SFA anyway. As long as gay lobby groups like the AIDS foundation, the public service which is strongly ideological, and unions, don’t put their hand up for public money either. The Catholic Church has survived for 2000 years and will continue on without the ‘beneficence’ of the state.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  340. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Ryan,

    “But you would not complain in terms of equality about Christian churches being taxed while other religions were tax-exempt?”

    No, I would not. Not in terms of equality. All arguments based on equality are illegitimite in my view.

    Now lets be clear, not all Christians would agree with that (though many would). My view on equality arises from a Traditionalist worldview, which is radically anti-modern. There are Traditionalists who are not Christians. Some Traditionalists are neo-Pagans for example. They have an interesting journal:

    http://www.radicaltraditionalist.com/index.htm

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

    Lee01 (1,237) Says:
    October 7th, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    CW,

    “Which of course if your default response when you are asked to explain anomalies in the Bible,”

    On the contrary I have explained these so-called “anomoloies” many times. But people like you are not interested in any explanation, not matter how reasonable. Your just trolling.

    You cannot understand anything in the Bible until you understand and have some working knowledge of its narrative structure.

    Saying that God approves of polygamy is like saying Shakespear aproved of youth suicide because its in Romeo and Juliet.

    In short, read Biblical theology first. Until then I’m wasting my time responding to Biblically illiterate trolls.

    Again a complete avoidance of the issue and no attempt whatsoever to address it. There is no evidence in the Bible where God says that marriage is between one man and one woman nor does He condemn other relationships such as Solomon having hundreds of concubines, the only endorsement He gives are of allowing rapists to marry virgins, for virgins to be stoned to death, etc. Those are the rules set down by the Bible regarding relationships.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  342. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    But secular liberal tolerance is not tolerance, it is virulently intolerant of any view except secular liberalism, as this forum repeatedly shows.

    Absolutely correct.

    Tolerance is not a virtue, it’s a leftist buzz word that is used as a rod on the backs of all that disagree with any and everything they can dream up.

    We live in an age where to disagree is to be labelled and shouted down as a hater bigot, and we are constantly told to be “nice” even when the word “nice” actually means “ignorant”.

    We are told we have to put up with any amount of shit from people because they responded to John Kirwins depression add, or are giving up smoking, or are on anti depressants.

    It’s all bullshit, all negative enablement, and ultimately corrosive to a strong society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  343. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Lee – “Secular liberal tolerance, which is not really tolerance at all, as the response of “homophobia”

    Wrong. Liberal tolerance is a very specific thing. It is founded on the principle that ‘being accepting of any socially harmless behaviour’ allows for the most freedom of choice for all.

    It does not mean tolerance of all behaviour. That is the philosophy of social anarchy.

    The only valid argument you can have with a Liberal involves ideas of “what constitutes social harm”. The rest is meaningless within a Liberal context.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  344. Aredhel777 (278 comments) says:

    ‘Not quite. Descriptive relativism is not a philosophy of living.’

    Certainly, but the way a person views the world has profound implications, for their personal life, for their culture and for their government. Relativism is no different. It has consequences. And these consequences have included the rise in multiculturalism, feminism, and the gay rights movement (if you notice, these are about the eradication of differences between individuals, because in relativism there is no objective difference between one person and someone else.) Our laws are currently largely based on Christian assumptions, for example that the court system is structured to determine whether or not a person objectively committed a crime. As society becomes increasingly post-Christian, however, law will become arbitrary, as that is the logical conclusion of relativism. In short, we’re due for a considerable loss in freedoms.

    ‘Liberalism is *not* objective, even in its own view of itself, just as Christianity is not objective in the eyes of a Liberal.’

    Of course not. A liberal atheist is not a Christian. No offence, but that’s not a particularly profound insight.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  345. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    No, I would not. Not in terms of equality. All arguments based on equality are illegitimite in my view.

    Now lets be clear, not all Christians would agree with that (though many would). My view on equality arises from a Traditionalist worldview, which is radically anti-modern. There are Traditionalists who are not Christians. Some Traditionalists are neo-Pagans for example. They have an interesting journal:

    So rather than wanting people to be treated equally, what is your standard for how the state should treat different people?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  346. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda – “Tolerance is not a virtue, it’s a leftist buzz word that is used as a rod on the backs….”

    Wrong. Read my 1.42 post.

    Still waiting for your definition of bigotry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  347. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Aredhel – “No offence, but that’s not a particularly profound insight.”

    I don’t claim it to be. I deal in very simple terms. Helps keep things clear.

    “Relativism is no different.”

    I repeat, relativism is not a code of living. It is a means of describing things objectively. Liberalism is a very specific code. That is what you need to focus your criticism on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  348. somewhatthoughtful (452 comments) says:

    BECAUSE THAT’S HOW LEE SEES IT THAT IS HOW IT MUST BE – thread tl;dr for those of us who dropped out at ~ post 120. It must be great to be the world’s final authority on Theology…

    Keep it up guys, I’m off to have anal sex with my SO and marvel at how unproductive it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  349. Aredhel777 (278 comments) says:

    That’s an easy one Scott. Genuine bigotry is irrational hatred and/or fanaticism towards someone else. Take white hatred towards blacks in the 1960s in the US as an example. It is insulting to the people who suffered genuine racism in the US that ordinary people such as myself actually get accused of racism/hatred of women/homophobia (the second one amuses me no end, as I’m actually female.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  350. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    CW,

    “There is no evidence in the Bible where God says that marriage is between one man and one woman”

    At the beginning of the Bible:

    But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

    23 The man said,

    “This is now bone of my bones
    and flesh of my flesh;
    she shall be called ‘woman,’
    for she was taken out of man.”

    That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

    And near the end Jesus says:

    Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

    4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.

    “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

    8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.”

    So the varitations you have talked about were corruptions due to human sin. God regulated them temporarliy due to sin, as Jesus in the above passage says, but then Jesus restores the original commandment of one and one women for life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  351. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “So rather than wanting people to be treated equally, what is your standard for how the state should treat different people?”

    The issue for me is not the state. The state should, ideally, stick to national defense and let the natural state of society return. Heirachy is the natural state of affairs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  352. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Scott,

    ““Tolerance is not a virtue, it’s a leftist buzz word that is used as a rod on the backs….”

    In practice she is right. Your definition is an abstract one. In practice Liberalism behaves exactly as Shurunda says. Remember Paul Henry? Or the head of the manufactures association recently? Liberal “tolerance” in practice IS a rod to beat up on anyone who disagrees with Liberalism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  353. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    The issue for me is not the state. The state should, ideally, stick to national defense and let the natural state of society return. Heirachy is the natural state of affairs.

    Yet you want it to actively prevent same-sex couples from adopting.

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

    Cheers – see how much easier it was to post that with backing verses instead of dodging the issue?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  355. Aredhel777 (278 comments) says:

    I don’t see why people think that our current system of government is such a bad thing and should be changed. It’s actually very good. Criminals are punished, most people can largely live our lives without interference from the state, in New Zealand at least you don’t see a lot of hatred or genuine discrimination (not just the silly liberal use of the word) towards people…. life is pretty good. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  356. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Aredhel777 – “Our laws are currently largely based on Christian assumptions, for example that the court system is structured to determine whether or not a person objectively committed a crime.”

    I disagree. Laws have grown out of all kinds of tradition, which is more in line with what Lee talks about. New Zealand law is mainly based on English Common Law, which is basically the law of past precedent. This at least gives it consistency within itself, but it is still based on the original arbitrary decisions.

    The claim that law is divinely inspired and based on a combination of Natural Law and direct divine intervention such as Jesus’ or Moses’ revelations makes no sense to those of us who do not believe in magic. Doesn’t mean we’re all atheists either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  357. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “Yet you want it to actively prevent same-sex couples from adopting.”

    For the time being yes. We, for now, have a large state, and i believe the sate should regulate things for the benifit of the natural family, as a minarchist state is not on the cards anytime soon. But the whole edifice of the modern state is not my preference or ideal. It will sooner or later collapse under the weight of its economic and social insanities.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  358. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “I don’t see why people think that our current system of government is such a bad thing and should be changed.”

    I think there are huge problems with the modern state, but this is not the thread to go into that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  359. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    I have to go and do some real work. Will anwer more questions later.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  360. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Lee

    In the cases of Paul Henry and Alasdair Thompson, what they said was deemed to be more harmful to the interests of their employers than their personal interest in the form of the right to free speech. They suffered no sanction from the state itself, so in that sense, they were free to say what they liked.

    Henry though, was some way towards “inciting racial hatred”, which is a crime, so tolerance *was* shown to him too by the state.

    In other words, what they said generated more harm than good, within the context of our liberal society. Very easy decision to sack them both.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  361. Aredhel777 (278 comments) says:

    ‘I disagree. Laws have grown out of all kinds of tradition, which is more in line with what Lee talks about. New Zealand law is mainly based on English Common Law, which is basically the law of past precedent. This at least gives it consistency within itself, but it is still based on the original arbitrary decisions.’

    I know what the common law is because I’m studying for a law degree. My point was that the very concept of the common law came out of Christian assumptions that objective truth exists. The concept of the ‘rule of law’ demands, among other things, that people who are subject to the law should know what the law entails, out of a concept of fairness. This is why we have consistency in the common law, because otherwise it would be impossible to know what the law was. On the other hand, the logical conclusion of relativism is that any concept of ‘fairness’ is merely subjective.

    There are many other examples of the Christian view of objective truth on our law and government. For example, Christians believe there is an objective way to interpret statute and therefore the judges’ interpretation of statute is not arbitrary. As I have already said, the courts were also set up to determine whether someone really, objectively committed murder and whether this objectively violated the laws of the land. None of this could ever have been produced by a relativist culture, and as the Christian base which produced this culture crumbles so too will the institutions and laws which sprang from a Christian worldview change and crumble in turn.

    I would address the separation of powers and the Christian influence on that, and perhaps even the separation of church and state, but I have made my point.

    I’m going to ignore the rest of your post because it was both very ignorant and pointlessly offensive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  362. Chuck Bird (4,688 comments) says:

    I am an agnostic and like many agnostics and athiests I do not support the militant homosexual agenda or the agenda of the lunatic fringe of the libertarians.

    I often wonder how some fundamentals Christians who may otherwise be very intelligent believe the world was formed in 4004BC of something close to that. I also find hard to understand how otherwise very intelligent people can subscribe to libertarian ideology.

    It is common sense that if male homosexuals are allowed to adopt boys the will be at a very much increased risk of sexual abuse.

    Just look where a lot of sexual abuse of girls happens. Some of it admittedly happens from fathers but far more happens from mothers boyfriends.

    If homosexual adopt boys some the abuse will come from them but a greater risk will be from new partners when their relationship end. Homosexual relationships last on average a lot less than heterosexual ones do increasing the risk.

    There are a lot of other good reasons to be opposed to homosexuals adopting children but the ideologues tactic is personal attack. As i can’t be called a Christian bigot I will be called a homophobe which really means someone who opposes the homosexual agenda particularly as it relates to children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  363. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Aredhel777 – “I’m going to ignore the rest of your post because it was both very ignorant and pointlessly offensive.”

    It wasn’t intended to be offensive. I was being frank. I do not believe in direct divine intervention as such. I consider metaphysical intervention to be physically impossible, that is why I call it magic.

    As a pantheist, I do believe in God, though probably not in the same way as you do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  364. Aredhel777 (278 comments) says:

    Ah, my apologies, Scott. I spent two months on the Richard Dawkins forum (until I realised what a waste of time it was) where they constantly harassed me for believing in ‘magic’, so perhaps you can understand why I reacted the way I did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  365. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Scott,

    “In other words, what they said generated more harm than good, within the context of our liberal society.”

    Which proves my point. Liberals will always claim that dessent against their ideology “generates harm” in order to silence dissenting opinion.

    Chuck,

    “I often wonder how some fundamentals Christians who may otherwise be very intelligent believe the world was formed in 4004BC ”

    I wonder that myself given that the Bible says nothing of the sort. It should also be pointed our that the word for “day” in Genesis one is the Hebrew word “Yom” which can and often does mean an aeon or age, meaning a great length of time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  366. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Aredhel777

    No problem. To be honest there may have been a little sub-conscious barb in there, so perhaps I’ll avoid using the word.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  367. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    It would perhaps be useful to use different labels in these discussions. I am aware that there are liberals who do not subscribe to the kind of liberalism we have in practice, or that bothers me so much. I wonder if “cultural Marxists” would better describe the enemy class?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  368. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    # Lee01 (1,244) Says:
    October 7th, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    “Although I’m sure after ten minutes of Google you’ll eventually find some crackpot Christian “research”.”

    Which proves my point. You will not accept ANY evidence that does not support your view. Your lying when you ask for it.

    ————————————-

    No, I will accept evidence if it is credible and peer-reviewed in a respected journal that doesn’t have a Christian family-values agenda.

    Would you accept evidence from High Times Magazine on the benefits of Marijuana legalization? Of course not, it’s obviously a biased source. So too is “research” from a Christian organization seeking to reinforce their preconceived ideas.

    But hell, at this point I’ll consider anything you have to offer… I’m just interested to know what the basis is for your assertions. Given the amount of effort you’ve put into not providing any evidence of your claims one is lead to the conclusion that in fact you don’t have any evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  369. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Lee – “Liberals will always claim that dessent against their ideology”

    You are free to criticize liberalism itself with nothing more than cultural disapprobation as a consequence, just a I would face cultural sanction if I went into a church and started spouting about Islam.

    The point about liberalism is that, in essence, it tries to be the best moral system it possibly can, and that is why people like me stick up for it, because I believe in it in spite of its contrived nature. It is a kind of religion I suppose.

    Thing is, there is room within liberalism for Christianity, but it doesn’t work the other way around. Perhaps Christians should focus on the tolerance aspect of liberalism with regard to how society treats Christians, in spite of *some* Christians’ lack of reciprocal tolerance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  370. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “No, I will accept evidence if it is credible and peer-reviewed in a respected journal that doesn’t have a Christian family-values agenda.”

    In other words, in more honest words, secular liberal propaganda.

    Experts Worldwide Find Gay Adoption Harmful for Children:

    “The report contests that the majority of the studies carried out which have concluded in favour of same-sex parenthood betray an egregious lack of scientific rigour. Most of the studies show a strong bias to one side.

    To prove this the report analyzes the nature of the individuals who have been responsible for the various studies carried out thus far, demonstrating that the vast majority are either homosexuals themselves, or active in the gay-rights movement. Into this category fall all six of the six most prominent psychologists of the American Psychological Association, which, unsurprisingly is one of the organizations most strongly and vocally in favour of homosexual adoption.

    In compiling and comparing the available data from these studies, as well as more objective studies, the team of first-class psychologists and sociologists which penned the HazteOir report have noted prominent and disturbing trends.

    Among children raised by same-sex couples, the report notes a significant increase in low self-esteem, stress, confusion regarding sexual identity, an increase in mental illness, drug use, promiscuity, STD’s, and homosexual behaviour, amongst others. Furthermore, the report shows that statistics have brought to light the fact that same-sex relationships betray a much higher instance of separation and break-up than heterosexual relationships, increasing the likelihood that the child will experience familial instability.”

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2005/may/05053106

    Dangers of Same-Sex Couples Adopting Children (Part 1): http://www.zenit.org/article-11455?l=english

    Dangers of Same-Sex Couples Adopting Children (Part 2): http://www.zenit.org/article-11466?l=english

    This last paper is extensive and the most damning. A Review Of Research On Homosexual Parenting, Adoption, And Foster Parenting by George A. Rekers, Ph.D., Professor of Neuropsychiatry & Behavioral Science, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Columbia, South Carolina:

    http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ResearchReviewHomosexualParenting.pdf

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

    @Weihana

    That’s pretty naïve. You assume that ‘peer reviewed’ journals are purely empirical and not prone to bias. It’s not that long ago that liberals protested about ‘the establishment’/’the man’ influenced the thinkers, the media, the big insitutions. Why has this all of a sudden changed?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  372. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Scott,

    “Thing is, there is room within liberalism for Christianity,”

    I don’t think thats really the case. The evidence from Canada and Europe suggests otherwise.

    This is from Paleo-Libertarian Sean Gabb.

    How Long Before Christians are Actively Persecuted in England?, Sean Gabb, 1st March 2011

    http://www.seangabb.co.uk/?q=node/531

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  373. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    # Lee01 (1,245) Says:
    October 7th, 2011 at 12:51 pm

    “Where in nature do you see computers?”

    “Computers are made out of nature, they are therefore natural in their basic state.”

    lol. Everything is made out of nature so in that case everything is natural. Nuclear waste is natural. Michael Jackson’s nose was natural.

    “Or democracy? ”

    “Nowhere. Democracy is a fraudulent and destructive notion.”

    So why do you stay here? Why not move to North Korea? or Saudi Arabia? They seem to have more in common with you than liberal New Zealand.

    “Or religion?”

    “Everywhere.”

    Didn’t exist 100,000 years ago. It only existed when man created it, just like he created democracy, just like he created notions of equality, just like he created liberalism and just like he created computers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  374. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “It’s not that long ago that liberals protested about ‘the establishment’/’the man’ influenced the thinkers, the media, the big insitutions. Why has this all of a sudden changed?”

    Because liberals are now in power. How quickly the rhetoric changes when your “the man”!!

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

    I’m not suggesting there is some liberal anti-conservative conspiracy. But I am questioning you ‘faith’ in peer-reviewed journals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  376. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “So why do you stay here? Why not move to North Korea? or Saudi Arabia? ”

    I’m a Westerner and a Christian. Thats a stupid question. I love New Zealand. Its the liberal disease that infects it I don’t like. New Zealand was a far saner country when it was founded. It can be so again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  377. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    East Wellington Superhero

    “You assume that ‘peer reviewed’ journals are purely empirical and not prone to bias. ”

    No, I assume they are worthy of consideration and less *likely* to be biased. Biased sources can be correct. Indeed I would agree with High Times Magazine that pot should be legalized but I would never presume that anything they published could be relied upon without further investigation. Similarly I would not automatically trust anything from a Christian family-values organization with regards to any claims they make.

    BTW I do not often protest about “the man” or “the establishment”. That is usually the preserve of people who need to try and find some excuse why things aren’t going their way. Indeed the establishment is very liberal so why, as a liberal, would I think it’s holding me back?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  378. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “lol. Everything is made out of nature so in that case everything is natural. Nuclear waste is natural. Michael Jackson’s nose was natural.”

    Except for abstract irrational ideas like equality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  379. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Lee01,

    “I love New Zealand. Its the liberal disease that infects it I don’t like. New Zealand was a far saner country when it was founded. It can be so again.”

    The country is what we have made it. So while you claim to love New Zealand clearly you can’t stand the people that make up this country and who have made it the place that it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  380. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “The country is what we have made it.”

    This country was what the pioneers made it, and the Christians, and the decent family oriented people who built it. The minority liberal elites who have siezed power in the media and bureaucracy since the late sixties are not and have never been the majority. The corrosive fruits of their efforts have not done NZ any good. I can love my country without pandering to their ideological insanities.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  381. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Lee01,

    Thank you for the links. Only took a day for you to find some :)

    As I expected none of the links are from credible unbiased sources, but at least it’s something.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  382. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “As I expected none of the links are from credible unbiased sources”

    There is no such thing. If you think mainstream secular sources are unbiased your a fool.

    And I have a list of those links I keep on hand. I just don’t see why I should wipe your ass. Do your own research.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  383. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Not Socialism, but Post-Socialism: The Nature of the Enemy Class by Sean Gabb

    http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc113.htm

    How to Destroy the Enemy Class: A Manifesto for the Right by Sean Gabb

    http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc047.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  384. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Lee01,

    Oh those “liberal elites”. Why does the majority keep voting for them then? hmmmm.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  385. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “Oh those “liberal elites”. Why does the majority keep voting for them then?”

    Two reasons. They have very little choice. Almost every party on offer is liberal. And they have been bought off with welfare money and cowed into silence by constant accusations of “homophobia” “racism” and “intolerance”.

    But sooner or later the worm will turn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  386. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    # Lee01 (1,254) Says:
    October 7th, 2011 at 3:21 pm

    “As I expected none of the links are from credible unbiased sources”

    “There is no such thing. If you think mainstream secular sources are unbiased your a fool.”

    It has nothing to do with whether someone is “mainstream” or “secular”. It’s whether the person providing the “research” has an agenda to promote and the people you have cited clearly do. They may still provide compelling arguments and they ultimately may be correct, but they certainly cannot be taken at face value.

    “And I have a list of those links I keep on hand. I just don’t see why I should wipe your ass. Do your own research.”

    Because YOU made the assertion that your claims were based on research. The onus is on YOU to back up what YOU assert if you want to be taken seriously. Indeed I presume that’s why you have these links “on hand” for just such a purpose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  387. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “It’s whether the person providing the “research” has an agenda to promote”

    EVERYONE has an agenda to promote. There is no such thing as objective and nuetral reasearch, especially when it comes to social issues.

    “The onus is on YOU to back up what YOU assert if you want to be taken seriously.”

    Bollocks. I can make any asserion I want and back or not as it suits me. I don’t answer to you or anyone else, and I don’t care one bit if apologists for baby torturers take me seriously or not.

    Taken seriously??? You claimed that whether or not torturing babies for fun was wrong was a matter of opinion, and you think I have a credibility problem?

    Get over yourself. And for God’s sake, get help. Your a very sick person.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  388. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    # Lee01 (1,255) Says:
    October 7th, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    “Oh those “liberal elites”. Why does the majority keep voting for them then?”

    Two reasons. They have very little choice. Almost every party on offer is liberal. And they have been bought off with welfare money and cowed into silence by constant accusations of “homophobia” “racism” and “intolerance”.

    But sooner or later the worm will turn.

    ————————————

    Ohhh poor bubba… people saying nasty things to you conservatives… so sad… a tear rolls down my cheek.

    But sorry, labelling someone a “homophobe” or a “racist” or “intolerant”, even if inaccurate, does not equate to being “cowed into silence”.

    And if, as you say, every party on offer is liberal why don’t you start your own? If there is this great socially conservative majority out there then it shouldn’t be difficult to get the required signatures to register your party and given the appealling nature of your manifesto you’ll win the election in a landslide.

    Then again you might just be living in fantasy land.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  389. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Lee01,

    “Your a very sick person.”

    You ARE a sick person, I think you mean. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  390. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    “You claimed that whether or not torturing babies for fun was wrong was a matter of opinion”

    No, in fact I claimed it can be objectively wrong, but it cannot be absolutely wrong. That you don’t understand the difference is unfortunate… for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  391. RRM (9,478 comments) says:

    Two things that always amaze me:

    (1) When gay people say they want the same rights that everyone else already has, and this is characterised as “the militant homosexual agenda” by those that already have the rights…

    (2) When kiwiblog thread includes “gay”, always a couple hundred more comments than any other thread. Clearly the New Zealanders are still pretty uptight about who their coutrymen are having sex with…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  392. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    “EVERYONE has an agenda to promote. There is no such thing as objective and nuetral reasearch, especially when it comes to social issues.”

    To an extent I agree, but I think there is a world of difference between an organization set up precisely to advocate on the issues at stake compared to an organization with general expertise in the subject of interest. One is a credible authority, the other is not. That doesn’t mean the credible authority is necessarily right or unbiased.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  393. nasska (10,696 comments) says:

    RRM

    …”When kiwiblog thread includes “gay”, always a couple hundred more comments than any other thread. “….

    You may have something there….at 392 responses after 30 hours we could be heading for a new record.

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

    @RRM

    How dare people have an opinion!

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

    @RRM

    That said, I’m getting tired of Lee01 and his insistence on poorly explaining things to people who clearly aren’t interested in real debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  396. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    East Wellington Superhero,

    Define “real debate”.

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

    @Weihana

    The fact is that one side has faith in one set of beliefs and the other side has faith in another set.

    One side has faith that God has set up a natural order which homosexuality is a deviation from it.
    The other side has faith in its empiricism. I say ‘faith’ because the empiricist believes that in time empiricism will answer all questions – clearly a faith position.

    Neither side will agree with the other because their philosophical assumptions about reality (believed in faith by both sides) are different.

    There is therefore little point arguing the to’s and fro’s of the gay issue because the root of it is really a philosophical debate around truth.

    I qualify this by saying that I think Lee01 incorrectly applies Christian thought (though haven’t read enough of his comments to be sure of this – saying ‘the bible alone’ is not actually consistent with what the bible says about itself. The Catholic Church claims that the Church it is the authority – outrageous I know! Yet philosophical consistent with itself which those that care to investigate will discover. The ‘bible-alone’ argument is so clearly weak that critics have little time for it). I also qualify this be saying that I generously assuming the empiricist is true to their creed and does not let emotion cloud their investigation (I argue that most empiricist do – but get away with it because their peers never challenge them on it because the share similar goals).

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

    I find that Lee01’s comments tend to centre on a “God said don’t do this coz it’s wrong” view of sexuality. The more inspiring and joyous view – which the Catholic Church teaches – is that the coming together of a man and woman is an icon (an image/an example/a sign) of what God is like. The Father and Son coming together – in a self-giving way – and being open to life (the Holy Spirit). Indeed God created the family to be like a mini-trinity. And thus humans are called to image this – by being open to life. Thus you have the teaching around openness in sexual relations – that a baby could come from intercourse – but not that sex is only for procreation (this is something levelled at the Church by people not willing read the depth of the teaching. And so from this view flow the teachings around contraception, divorce, homosexuality etc etc.

    Now obviously if you don’t believe in the Trinitarian God you’re not going to agree. And this is the problem.

    But to those who dismiss the existence of God off hand, I’d argue most have not really understood the faith required to be atheist or even agnostic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  399. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Weihana (666) Says:

    Aha! I knew it. Weihana is the Liberal Anti-Christ!!

    Book of Revelation 13:17–18, “The Number Of The Beast”, translated into Haitian Creole to try to make sense of it:

    “Lè ke pa gen okenn moun ta ka achte oswa vann, sove li sa ki te make a, oswa non bèt la, oswa nimewo a nan non li. Isit la se bon konprann. Se pou l ‘ki gen konprann ka konte kantite bèt la: pou li se nimewo nan yon nonm; ak nimewo li se 666″

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  400. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    For the time being yes. We, for now, have a large state, and i believe the sate should regulate things for the benifit of the natural family, as a minarchist state is not on the cards anytime soon. But the whole edifice of the modern state is not my preference or ideal. It will sooner or later collapse under the weight of its economic and social insanities.

    So while we wait for a minarchist state(s), the existing state should enforce your religion’s values on everyone. Once we reach the minarchist state(s), there would be no intervention?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  401. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    East Wellington Superhero,

    “One side has faith that God has set up a natural order which homosexuality is a deviation from it.
    The other side has faith in its empiricism. I say ‘faith’ because the empiricist believes that in time empiricism will answer all questions – clearly a faith position.”

    While I agree with you that this debate is largely pointless given that people are arguing from different assumptions, I don’t agree that empiricism can be called a faith. That is a contradiction of what empiricism is.

    Empiricism does not necessarily assume that all questions can be answered with empirical evidence (which would be a faith based belief), empiricism merely states that sensory perception is the only way to acquire knowledge. This does not imply that all questions will be answered. It is perfectly legitimate to say that knowledge can only be acquired through sensory perception while still entertaining the possibility that some things are unknowable due to the nature of the universe making certain things impossible to verify. Indeed to say that all questions can be answered with empirical evidence would be a contradiction of empiricism because this fact cannot, at least not as yet, be observed through sensory perception and empiricism says knowledge can only come from sensory perception.

    I notice a tendency amongst the religious to label every type of belief as faith so as to put religion back on a level with other philosophies. But really faith is belief in something without sufficient evidence and that is what puts religion apart from, and in contrast to, other epistemological approaches to knowledge such as empiricism.

    This is why I consider religion to be incompatible with science because, fundamentally, if one embraces both then they embrace a philosophical contradiction. But I would also say this only applies to true religious belief, that is people who are certain of their beliefs in the absence of evidence and not merely people who entertain the possibility of things unknown.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  402. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    “But to those who dismiss the existence of God off hand, I’d argue most have not really understood the faith required to be atheist or even agnostic.”

    To be an atheist or agnostic I think one needs to understand the *concept* of faith, but they do not need to necessarily understand the particulars of every religion out there. Given that there are an infinite number of possible faith-based beliefs then it would be impossible or at least impractical to understand all of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  403. Fletch (6,032 comments) says:

    Wow, Fletch, was that intentional deception or were you just unaware that the ridiculously over-the-top “Homosexual Agenda” was satire?

    I’ve seen this printed many times in different places, and nowhere does it say it is satire. It if was, don’t you think that would have to be included in something as official as the Congressional Record?

    For the record, I went searching, and this is supposedly the first line that marks it as ‘satire’

    This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.

    Does it sound like someone saying “the following is a satire”? Not to me. Sounds like a homosexual giving vent to his anger. it may have even been added after the fact. If it’s not in the Congressional Record, then who knows…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  404. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Weihana – “This is why I consider religion to be incompatible with science”

    Actually, Pantheism is compatible with science, as the only assumption Pantheism makes is that everything is God. “Everything” includes empiricism and science.

    Pantheism ticks most of the boxes for a God, including self awareness, interventionism and omnipresence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  405. nasska (10,696 comments) says:

    Fletch

    For the unexpurgated version refer http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/swift1.asp

    It would appear that the “Congressional Record” may have had a rather large barrow they were pushing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  406. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Two things that always amaze me:

    (1) When gay people say they want the same rights that everyone else already has, and this is characterised as “the militant homosexual agenda” by those that already have the rights…

    As far as adoption goes you may have a point, but not for marriage, they have all the same rights right now, but that isn’t good enough, they are demanding the tradition as well.

    It seems to me that some gay activists just really like pissing people off, once they get what they want, they simply move on to the next item. The human rights issues are long gone, now it is all about forcing people against their will to marry them and such like, which is why California told them to get f@cked.
    This has more to do with forcing a rival belief system on people than a rational review or correction of human rights injustices.

    This group of activists clashes with Christians particularly strongly because of the tensions between these rival belief systems and the perceived fight to control society, both groups are frequently extremely irrational.

    (2) When kiwiblog thread includes “gay”, always a couple hundred more comments than any other thread. Clearly the New Zealanders are still pretty uptight about who their coutrymen are having sex with…

    No, I think you will find it is because those f@ckwits we elected to parliament for 9 years were telling us what to do just a wee bit too much.

    Accepting gay people is one thing, but them telling me how to treat my wife, kids, beneficiary neighbours, and even what food I am allowed to eat starts to sound…..oh I don’t know…..a little to much like fucking church.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  407. nasska (10,696 comments) says:

    Shunda

    Well said…IMHO the best comment on the thread.

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

    @Weihana

    “While I agree with you that this debate is largely pointless given that people are arguing from different assumptions, I don’t agree that empiricism can be called a faith. That is a contradiction of what empiricism is.”

    My beef is that people don’t ever assess their assumptions! Which many Christians are guilty of doing too. They just put faith in ideas that are convenient for their them with little regard to what might be objective truth.

    My point was many empiricists position themselves as ‘believing in science’ and ‘the facts’ but stretch and breach the boundaries of empiricism. And some say ‘Oh well, empiricism will find the answer to that one day’ which itself is faith position.

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

    Ah, Day Two, the greens have had a light watering over night and are expected to favour the use of lofted irons on approach.

    March 25 2010 -
    Steven and Malcolm are married in a ceremony at the home of Stevens parents well known Chrsitchurch rugby identities.

    This affects Paul fishing off the coast of Whakatane , how?

    March 22 2011 -

    Steven files for divorce on the grounds of emotional abandonment by Malcom. No pre-nuptial was signed and Malcom is expected to be taken to the cleaners by Steven.

    This affects any of us how? The only thing that is affecting me, and this is a genuine concern, is the thought of Aredhel777 walking around some university campus a bundle of repressed sexual energy saving herself for marriage. What happens if no one ever asks ?

    Shunda , good point in the last paragraph of your 5.50p m but its a fair bet that just as many gay couples despise the labour government of the last nine years as the rest of us ‘normal’ people

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  410. Aredhel777 (278 comments) says:

    ‘Bollocks. I can make any asserion I want and back or not as it suits me. I don’t answer to you or anyone else, and I don’t care one bit if apologists for baby torturers take me seriously or not.

    Taken seriously??? You claimed that whether or not torturing babies for fun was wrong was a matter of opinion, and you think I have a credibility problem?

    Get over yourself. And for God’s sake, get help. Your a very sick person.’

    Lee, I’m not trying to put you down or anything, and I’m actually on your side in this debate, but Weihana isn’t being nearly as aggressive as Courage Wolf. Doesn’t hurt to chill a little bit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  411. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Shunda Barunda,

    “they are demanding the tradition as well”

    You mean they are demanding equal recognition under the law. Again the example of Maori seats is a good one. They don’t give Maori any more say in Government disproportionate to the Maori vote. So why do Pakeha complain if it’s equal but seperate? Because it’s wrong IN PRINCIPLE.

    Moreover, it’s NEVER separate but equal. The reality is always that it isn’t equal because ultimately that is the purpose of treating people separately. With the Maori seats it may be proportionally equal but it does nevertheless ensure Maori are represented where they might not otherwise meet the 5% threshold, and it also gives Maori the ability to choose between electorates a choice others don’t have. Similarly with marriage, you say gays are equal yet they can’t adopt which clearly shows they aren’t equal.

    The only reason for setting up a separate system is to treat people differently and that is what is being protested. All this waffle about “tradition” is nonsense. People can continue to practice whatever tradition they like and can attach whatever special meaning to their relationship that they like. But the issue is equal recognition under the law.

    Just imagine if the government said non-whites couldn’t marry and created a separate law for them called “non-white marriage” but made “non-white marriage” an exact copy of the Marriage Act. Would people be wrong to complain about it? Of course they wouldn’t because even if the difference is in name only the government, by doing such a thing, is giving tacit approval to the notion that non-white people should be treated differently and/or are inferior. In such a case non-white people would be justifiably outraged and so too are homosexuals for being treated differently.

    “now it is all about forcing people against their will to marry them and such like”

    Right, because gay people want to force others to marry them. Are you even hearing yourself?

    “Accepting gay people is one thing, but them telling me how to treat my wife, kids, beneficiary neighbours, and even what food I am allowed to eat starts to sound…..oh I don’t know…..a little to much like fucking church.”

    It is the government’s job to pass legislation which controls how people treat their wife, kids etc. What do you think law against child abuse is? It’s telling you how to treat your child.

    We all have different opinions about where the line should be drawn, but the basic point is there will always be a line and there is always a role for government to play in ensuring individual rights are protected – even from other family members (or ESPECIALLY from other family members).

    Politicians on the left are overly controlling in many respects I agree, but I fail to see how politicians on the right aren’t overly controlling either just in a different way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  412. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    EWS,

    “I find that Lee01’s comments tend to centre on a “God said don’t do this coz it’s wrong” view of sexuality. The more inspiring and joyous view – which the Catholic Church teaches – is that the coming together of a man and woman is an icon (an image/an example/a sign) of what God is like. The Father and Son coming together – in a self-giving way – and being open to life (the Holy Spirit). Indeed God created the family to be like a mini-trinity.”

    In fact I totally agree with this view. Your perception of my view is because of the subject at hand, but that does not mean I do not have the positive side as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  413. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    East Wellington Superhero – “And some say ‘Oh well, empiricism will find the answer to that one day’ which itself is faith position.”

    Yes, there are non religious people who place their faith in future events happening, some of whom are wishful thinkers.

    But others, such as weather forecasters, make scientific predictions extrapolated from past data and computer weather models, (I won’t mention AGW) and the faith they have is *only* in the predictive capability of the system, not the certainty of outcome.

    The faith that empiricists have in science is based on successful replication of experiment and theory, which to a large extent determines certainty within the context of the experiment. No faith is required, because its veracity is self evident and empirically tangible. Modern technology would not exist without using this model.

    “Faith” in the context of most religion requires an abandonment of logical reason in favour of accepting an unprovable metaphysical premise. That is the difference.

    You may see patterns and phenomena that are seemingly impossible to explain, but that is what they should remain as far as science is concerned. Unexplained.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  414. adze (1,873 comments) says:

    The faith that empiricists have in science is based on successful replication of experiment and theory, which to a large extent determines certainty within the context of the experiment. No faith is required, because its veracity is self evident and empirically tangible. Modern technology would not exist without using this model.

    Aaaand like 99% of all science vs. religion debates, they end up as fruitless debates around epistemology. That’s why I don’t bother with them anymore. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  415. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Perhaps the easiest way to sum up Shunda Barunda’s attitude towards Marriage is that he believes that the marriage institution is the *property of heterosexuals over the age of 16*

    So the question is, what is the basis of Shunda’s claim as a heterosexual to partial exclusive ownership of the marriage institution?

    I can’t think of one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  416. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Scott Chris.

    I will post this here, so I hope you and others see it, but I may post on GD as well.

    You are right about me. It sometimes takes a little while for valid criticisms to sink in, but they do. Your criticisms of me in the passionate post you made on this thread were spot on.

    I have been arrogant and prideful and unforgiving in the way that I have presented my views. I am not repudiating my opinions themselves, but the way I have presented them.

    I have abused and disrespected others here, and I have not done either my views or the Gospel any favours as a result. Quite the contrary, I have damaged peoples perception of Jesus and of Traditionalism because of the arrogant and hateful way I have gone about debating the issues.

    I am sorry. When someone says I have damaged how they see Jesus then I should hang my head in shame.

    To Weihana, big bruv, MyNameIsJack, naaska, Pete George, and anyone else that I have been disrespectful to, I am truly sorry. I ask your forgiveness, and I apologise for how I have behaved towards you. I had no right to speak to you as I did.

    I especially apologise to Weihana for the words that I have used and the way I have talked with you.

    I was naive. I did not expect the fierceness of debate to be as personal and harsh as it is. But that is besides the point. None of that gave me the right to say the things I did. Again, I am truly sorry. I have disrespected you, myself and my Saviour.

    I will most likely be posting here a lot less. Its that time of the year for varsity students when we are under a good deal of pressure with final assignments and exams. But when I do post, it will be in a far different manner. I cannot claim perfection, and so I hope good people will point it out if I go astray. Please do. I will take head.

    Thankyou, and thanks especially to Scott Chris, who was the voice of God to me, and helped me to see my own sin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  417. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    adze – “That’s why I don’t bother with them anymore.”

    I find religious debates help me clarify things in my own mind, because I am forced to put half-formed ideas into words. It’s a good learning experience for me at least.

    Aside from that, it is much easier to promote liberalism and science, because they are inherently logical systems, and I do like to be on the winning team :P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  418. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Oops, that should have read “take heed”, not “take head”. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  419. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Lee – Not at all. From my point of view, I enjoy debating with you, and I have to keep my wits about me. I’m no angel either, as my taunts tend to be more subtle.

    Thanks anyway.

    edit: From my point of view, the most important bit of God in you is you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  420. Aredhel777 (278 comments) says:

    “The only thing that is affecting me, and this is a genuine concern, is the thought of Aredhel777 walking around some university campus a bundle of repressed sexual energy saving herself for marriage. What happens if no one ever asks?”

    Haha. Dude, you don’t *know* me. Don’t bother your head about my sexuality.

    And Lee, it’s not my place to say of course, but I was quite impressed by that apology. It’s not something I would have found easy to write, myself. When will we see Courage Wolf make such a post?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  421. Chuck Bird (4,688 comments) says:

    “Aside from that, it is much easier to promote liberalism and science, because they are inherently logical systems”

    You have to be joking. I agree with science but liberalism is faith based.

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

    …….and thanks especially to Scott Chris, who was the voice of God to me, and helped me to see my own sin…..

    The diety now known as Scott Chris, …………….FFFFFFFS Lee will now end up with the hellish rash from his hair shirt, hope you’re happy

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  423. Fletch (6,032 comments) says:

    ..And I’d be itching to see Aredhel777 give some answers back to some of the liberal professors who inhabit today’s universities. That would be something to see… :)

    Spending two months on Richard Dawkins forum sounds painful though…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  424. Aredhel777 (278 comments) says:

    Oh, you’ll see it Fletch. I plan to make a career of it. >=D

    As for the Richard Dawkins people, yes, it was painful. They are uneducated, aggressive, crass idiots. The irony was they thought they were intelligent, “moral” and sophisticated.

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

    Aredhel777 (73) Says:
    October 7th, 2011 at 8:31 pm

    Oh, you’ll see it Fletch. I plan to make a career of it. >=D

    As for the Richard Dawkins people, yes, it was painful. They are uneducated, aggressive, crass idiots. The irony was they thought they were intelligent, “moral” and sophisticated.

    Uneducated, aggressive and crass (note how it’s the Christians in this thread who have been doing the swearing)… Who think they’re intelligent, ‘moral’ and sophisticated… Sound like the Christians here on Kiwiblog.

    If you want a real challenge visit http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism.

    And Lee, it’s not my place to say of course, but I was quite impressed by that apology. It’s not something I would have found easy to write, myself. When will we see Courage Wolf make such a post?

    Apologise for what? I’m not the one trying to tell people to repent or they’re going to Hell.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  426. Aredhel777 (278 comments) says:

    CW, on the side of that page it says the following:

    All topics relating to atheism, agnosticism and secular living. All the Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris that you can muster!

    Yeah, thanks but no thanks. It’s nothing I haven’t seen before. If I wanted a “real challenge” I would take on the relativists who are the real atheist intellectuals (which I have in fact already been doing.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  427. reid (15,981 comments) says:

    How come a gay-parents good-or-bad-adoption-wise debate morphs into a Christian ethics debate. It often seems to, these days. Bit disappointing really since all it does is reinforce positions. Is it cause appawently we’re not allowed to discuss it at the office that we need to bring it up here, all the time, no matter what subject is being analysed?

    I’m not sure why, myself, it’s just a simple observation that it seems to happen a lot and this is probably the biggest thread for awhile where it’s happened.

    I just wonder why, that’s all. It would be quite good once in awhile if we debated for example one of Barclay’s sermons, but no. Just ignorant juvenile hate-filled taunts from the unbelievers. You should be ashamed…
    :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  428. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    Does it sound like someone saying “the following is a satire”?

    Yes, obviously.

    Not to me.

    Of course, not to you. You’ve got your own ideas about The Gays, and if you squint just right, this piece of random nonsense from on gay among millions gives you warm fuzzies about justifying your ridiculous position.

    Sounds like a homosexual giving vent to his anger. it may have even been added after the fact. If it’s not in the Congressional Record, then who knows…

    Fletch, assuming for a second that you genuinely believe that this represents goals and views common to the majority of homosexual New Zealanders, think for a moment how you will respond to a Christian tract I’m sure I could find very quickly online.

    Think about what your response would be to that tract being presented as an example of the Christian agenda.

    Think about what you think of people who would bring up that tract as exemplary of Christian views.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  429. Fletch (6,032 comments) says:

    Aredhel777, you would have loved the site ex-atheist.com, run by a miss ASA Jones, which sadly is no more. You remind me of her. She used to be an atheist (as the site name implies) and used to attack Christians over their faith before she became one.

    You can see some of her site archived HERE

    She used to go to sites like infidels.org and successfully debate them.
    I have some of them archived on my hard drive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  430. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    one gay among millions, that is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  431. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    Just reading about the Lord’s Resistance Army, looking for a manifesto. brb.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  432. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    Okay, Fletch, I’ve read the “Homosexual Agenda” thing more properly.

    Sorry, I thought you were serious. I didn’t realise on my first glance over it how blatantly satirical it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  433. reid (15,981 comments) says:

    Just reading about the Lord’s Resistance Army

    You mean the Congo one Ryan?

    Brutal, isn’t it. All for coltan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  434. Aredhel777 (278 comments) says:

    Thank you Fletch, that’s very kind of you to say. Only on a site as rightwing as Kiwiblog would I find people who actually respect my views! I’ll take a look at those archives. This Asa Jones person reminds me of a guy called Richard Morgan who got converted to Christianity as a result of spending time on the Richard Dawkins forums. Look him up if you’re interested, it’s quite amusing.

    Also, Lee, don’t stop posting. I agree with a lot of what you say and we need more people to argue for our perspective on the internet, not shutting up. You’re a good poster.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  435. Pete George (22,868 comments) says:

    I’m a bit puzzled.

    When Maori take over New Zealand, and homosexuals take over New Zealand, and Muslims take over New Zealand, and liberal secularists and atheists take over New Zealand, who will rule?

    I understand we could get a sudden rise of liberal gay Maori politicians but I don’t see how they can be atheist Muslims.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  436. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    Pete, I think there is a fear amongst conservatives that liberalism isn’t really liberalism, and that the present climate of censorship in Britain is a symptom of the slippery slope we Zealandians find ourselves on towards prohibition of free expression.

    They are wrong. Liberalism seeks balance, and the pendulum has simply swung too far in *some* cases in Britain.

    My advice to Christians is to sort out their doctrinal squabbles through the ecumenical movement, and form a strong and cohesive advocacy group, possibly in the form of a political party.

    Muslims in Britain are well represented politically, as are gays, firstly because they are united, and secondly, as a result of this cohesiveness, are far better positioned to play the game of politics.

    The only thing preventing Christians from being a potent political power is, ironically, their stubbornness and pride.

    In theory, Christianity should be a major force within a liberal system, simply through strength in numbers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  437. Pete George (22,868 comments) says:

    The biggest problem for Christians being a potent political force is that they are not “CHRISTIANS”, they are represented in all sorts of groups and sectors in society by people who happen to be Christians.

    Many Christians are a significant force in politics. It’s only the narrow ideological Christians who seem to think their religion is a basis for a political movement. They are confused.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  438. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    PG – “Many Christians are a significant force in politics”

    Maybe so, but they do not have a mandate from party constituents to promote the Christian cause for fear of alienating their secular supporters.
    A purely Christian party would not be constrained by such considerations, and would be free to promote their broader philosophy, as well as the wisdom of Jesus.

    Seems so simple from the outside, but I suppose the devil is in the detail. ;)

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

    Rubbish Scott and Pete, you speak such crap.

    Everyone has a worldview and that directs their focus and decisions (or it should).

    Hence the rubbish all the lefties and secularists have foisted on society in dismantling the Judeo-Christian heritage we have as a society.

    What we have is Christians in all movements not acting as a group like the lefties and secularists.
    or
    Many who claim to be Christians actually aren’t.

    Be assured if there were the same no of Muslims in all the parties as there are Christians we would see the Ummah pushing Islamic doctrine which they think is in the best interests of the country.

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

    Lee
    Keep posting, but be polite as you can, but don’t ever let the buggers get you down.
    Remember it is all Pearls before Swine in the end to the protagonists.

    Think on the lurkers.

    and remember that on the last day all of us will be on our knees.
    All of us will be part of each others judgement.
    Everyone goes to heaven (for the judgement) but not everyone stays there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  441. Pete George (22,868 comments) says:

    “Pearls before Swine”

    I don’t care what the actual history and meaning of this term is, I just want to say what it means to me.

    It sounds like a Christian saying “these are my pearls of wisdom and you’re a swine if you don’t agree”.
    And that comes across as “better than thou” religious arrogance.

    Yes, think of the lurkers, who are as likely to see this arrogance as they are to see any wisdom, tolerance and understanding.

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

    Mick Mac

    Lee is the one who stated here a couple of days ago that he had seen a new hand grow on someone at a meeting when there was an American evanalgilist in New Zealand.

    Now that is straight out fucking rubbish and bold faced lying, I hope all us “buggers” and “swine” do get him down and drag him back to some type of reality because the majority of us here although we don’t agree much on most things , are not attendees at tent meetings and snake bite revival shows.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  443. Scott Chris (5,896 comments) says:

    MickMac – “lefties and secularists have foisted on society in dismantling the Judeo-Christian heritage”

    You are in The Game whether you like it or not. You can either sit on the sidelines and bitch about how unfair it all seems, or you can rally a group of like minded individuals around you and advance the Judeo-Christian tradition.

    To take a less effective approach says more about your stubbornness than it it does about spreading the word of God.

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

    Good point Scott

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

    Pete
    Any right minded person will understand this, Your faux affront is just that.

    1. Pearls before swine
    New Living Translation (©2007)
    “Don’t waste what is holy on people who are unholy. Don’t throw your pearls to pigs! They will trample the pearls, then turn and attack you.

    Pearls before swine refers to a quotation from Matthew 7:6 in Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount, implying that things (such as pearls) should not be put in front of people (or in this case, swine) who do not appreciate their value.

    2. As for your “Tolerance” yes they see it for what it is, “do as we say, abet us in our wishes or else we will label you a bigot”.

    Remember you are part of my judgement just as much as we are part of yours.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  446. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Lee, what exactly did you say that is so wrong here (I haven’t read all your posts, but the ones I did weren’t exactly “bad”)

    Stop being a pussy, and stop being manipulated by the “you should feel bad for having a strong opinion” crowd.

    No one thinks you are Jesus, and no one thinks you are perfect, so drop the nonsense and just be who you are.

    This type of Christianity that encourages people to “behave” is a delusion and a deception, God knows what is in your heart so there is not much point in trying to hide it is there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  447. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    You are in The Game whether you like it or not. You can either sit on the sidelines and bitch about how unfair it all seems, or you can rally a group of like minded individuals around you and advance the Judeo-Christian tradition.

    To take a less effective approach says more about your stubbornness than it it does about spreading the word of God.

    Goodness me, I strongly agree with Scott on something.

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

    Yes, No Surrender to the pwogwessives!!!!

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

    Lee01 (1,262) Says:
    October 6th, 2011 at 2:41 pm

    Scott Chris

    “At some point in Isaac’s youth, Abraham was commanded by God to offer his son up as a sacrifice ”

    Did you note that he was commanded not to go through with it, but to sacrifice an animal instead?

    Secular scholars have shown that the story is a polemic AGAINST child sacrifice, which was common in the day. The Ancient Hebrews, following the Torah were the only civilisation NOT to engage in ritual child sacrifice.

    Just saw this – that’s a load of crap, given that God engaged in child sacrifice Himself by killing His own Son. Hardly against child sacrifice – if anything, He’s saying it’s OK to sacrifice your own son as an atonement for bad things. So say a village did something horrible, they could make up for it by sacrificing a child. If Clayton Weatherston killed Sophie Elliot, he doesn’t have to be punished for that sin if someone’s child dies as a sacrifice. Jesus forgives all doesn’t He? Even the murderers. That’s what Christianity teaches. All you have to do is accept the sacrifice.

    If Clayton kills Sophie, he has committed a sin.

    Say Jesus didn’t come down to Earth yet. If Lee offers up his child to be sacrificed as an atonement for Clayton’s sin (or an animal), then Clayton’s sin has been washed clean.

    That’s how the rules of Christianity according to the Bible work.

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

    Once again CW you speak out of your arse.
    Please put your anger and vitriol in a bin before you turn a computer on.
    I don’t say that because it clouds your judgement as that is already clouded.

    Questions
    Why was he commanded to Kill a Ram (male sheep) and not his son?
    What purpose did Abraham fulfill as he was about to sacrifice Issac?
    Where was the Hill Abraham was on in relation to the hill that the cross sat on when Jesus was sacrificed?
    When did Abraham’s event happen in relation to Jesus’s crucifixion?
    Why was Abraham’s name changed from Abram to Abraham?
    Does the moon follow the sun or visa versa?

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

    I have no idea what the heck you are talking about. The answers to your questions:

    Why was he commanded to Kill a Ram (male sheep) and not his son?

    Because the ram was an innocent animal with no relation to the matter, but God is like those animal abusers you see on the news who like to torture dogs for no reason but gratification?

    What purpose did Abraham fulfill as he was about to sacrifice Issac?

    None whatsoever, he could have used that time more productively on other matters rather than carrying him up a hill and going through the mental anguish of a God that would tell you to kill your own child.

    Where was the Hill Abraham was on in relation to the hill that the cross sat on when Jesus was sacrificed?

    Somewhere in the Middle East?

    When did Abraham’s event happen in relation to Jesus’s crucifixion?

    A few thousand years give or take.

    Why was Abraham’s name changed from Abram to Abraham?

    Why did Prince change his name to a symbol?

    Does the moon follow the sun or visa versa?

    According to the Bible, in Genesis 1:6-8 God created a firmament (which he named “Heaven”) to divide the water on earth and the water in the sky. Do we really have a solid sky holding water over us? Does the space shuttle have a “firmament opener” on the front of it? This would explain why every time it rained in the Bible, that God had to “open the windows of heaven” (Gen. 7:1 and Isa. 24:18 are examples). These openings allowed all the water above the solid sky to leak out. Maybe we broke a window on our first space mission, and have flown out the broken window every time since.

    Here are a few questions for you:

    God’s episodes of murdering innocent individuals for the faults of their leaders, fathers, or other ancestors are not uncommon in the Old Testament. Jephthah asks for God’s assistance in killing the children of Ammon and promises him the first person out of his house upon his return as a burnt sacrifice if he will agree to aid with the massacre. God concurs and lethally delivers the children of Ammon into Jephthah’s hands. When Jephthah returns, his daughter, an only child, makes her way outside to welcome him home. Two months later, Jephthah regretfully fulfills his promise by burning his daughter as a sacrifice to God (Judges 11:29-39). Why would God allow a man to offer an innocent person as a reward unless God also intended for certain people to be mere possessions?

    While David is King, he decides to conduct a census: a horrendous sin in God’s eyes. As punishment for his poor decision, he is to select among seven years of famine, three months of fleeing from his enemies, and three days of pestilence. Unable to choose from the offered catastrophes, God picks the three days of pestilence that result in the deaths of 70,000 men. Women and children weren’t mentioned, not that the Bible considered them to have any real value in the first place. Again, God murders enough people to fill a sizable city for the “sin” of one man. David subsequently cries out to God and asks him why he wants to murder innocent people who had nothing to do with the decision to execute a census. Of course God doesn’t provide an impossible answer for this sensible question, but his reasons scarcely seem morally or ethically justifiable (2 Samuel 24:10-17).

    David also desires a woman named Bathsheba even though she’s married to one of David’s soldiers. Driven by his lust, David orders her husband to the front lines of a battle so that the enemy will take care of his problem. God then becomes extremely angry with David for this relatively petty crime. Once the new couple has a child, God afflicts it with illness for a week before watching it die (2 Samuel 11, 12:14-18). Yet again, God exterminates an innocent baby for the actions of the father.

    At one point, God sends a famine upon David’s followers. When he makes an inquiry to God for a justification, he’s told, “It is for Saul, and his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites” (2 Samuel 21:1). Saul died years ago, yet God just now decides to punish people who had nothing to do with the decisions of their former leader.

    David’s new son, Solomon, turns away from the Hebrew god and decides to worship other deities. Solomon’s decision infuriates God, but he isn’t punished because God recently came to like David. Instead, he punishes Solomon’s son by taking away part of his land when he comes to power (1 Kings 11:9-13). Once again, we see the impossibility of being free from God’s anger even when living in total obedience to him. In essence, Solomon’s son was divinely punished before he was ever born.

    Next in the line of father-son reprimands is the account of King Josiah. “And like unto him was there no King before him, that turned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him. Notwithstanding the Lord turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath…because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him withal” (2 Kings 23:24-26). The passage speaks for itself. Yet again, God punishes a seemingly perfect person for someone else’s transgressions.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.