More on Marriage

October 27th, 2011 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

The Dom Post has run an op ed from Bob McCoskrie responding to Deborah Russell. An extract:

Firstly, it is true that marriage by definition is discriminatory. A homosexual cannot now legally marry. But neither can a whole lot of other people. A five-year-old boy cannot marry. Three people cannot get married to each other. A married man can’t marry another person. A child cannot marry her pet goldfish. A father cannot marry his daughter. A football team cannot enact group marriage  the list is endless. It is disingenuous to complain about rights being taken away, when they never existed in the first place.

I never knew Bob had such a vivid imagination. Think of the great pro-marriage example it would set if the All Blacks all married each other – that would be real team bonding – secret handshakes and all.

Tags: , ,

167 Responses to “More on Marriage”

  1. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    You’re missing the point David. Where do you draw the line? Philosophically you cannot deny those who desire a three-way or four-way union.

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

    Progressives love to mock conservatives for their ‘old-fashioned’ beliefs but the fact is that if you philosophically support gay-marriage because people simply ‘want to’ then you cannot deny other arrangements. And to build a community on mere ‘wants’ is a radical change, not some natural ‘progress’. Would you support those who want a three-way marriage?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Lucia Maria (2,428 comments) says:

    Bob is not entirely correct, as a homosexual can legally marry: he can marry a woman, and she can marry a man. Homosexuals just have to follow the eligibility rules for marriage, just like every one else.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,903 comments) says:

    EWS

    ‘Philosophically you cannot deny those who desire a three-way or four-way union.’

    I suppose ‘philosophically’ you cannot deny those who desire to **** their daughters or behead their neighbours.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. berend (1,709 comments) says:

    What was the first thing they did in Lybia? Enabling polygamous marriage.

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

    Firstly, it is true that marriage by definition is discriminatory. A homosexual cannot now legally marry. But neither can a whole lot of other people. A five-year-old boy cannot marry. Three people cannot get married to each other. A married man can’t marry another person. A child cannot marry her pet goldfish. A father cannot marry his daughter. A football team cannot enact group marriage the list is endless. It is disingenuous to complain about rights being taken away, when they never existed in the first place.

    Wow, equating two consenting adults in love with each other to marrying a fish or a child below the age of consent and then calling someone other than himself “disingenuous”. Stay classy, McCroskie.

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

    @ Adolf

    What are you on about? Was that some sort of anti-Christian/anti-Bible jibe. Hilarious. Such insight.

    How about you answer the question I pose to DPF instead of being a wise-arse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Lucia Maria (2,428 comments) says:

    Ryan,

    He doesn’t equate – he compares other situations where marriage is impossible or ridiculous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Lucia Maria (2,428 comments) says:

    EWS,

    Adolf is just being Adolf. Don’t take it personally.

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

    See,

    Ryan has done it as well. He mocks McCoskrie instead of addressing the point that McCoskrie is making. Obviously Bob is being factious about the goldfish. But he is raising the point about polygamy.

    @ Ryan. Do you support consensual polygamy?

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

    He doesn’t equate – he compares other situations where marriage is impossible or ridiculous.

    Yes, arguing that the two examples are similar in relevant enough ways that complaining about the inequality between heterosexual and homosexual adults is like complaining about the inequality between heterosexual adults and children who want to marry goldfish. If it wasn’t from McCroskie, I would have trouble believing it wasn’t an exaggerated parody of the level of stupidity found in anti-gay-marriage arguments.

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

    Bob needs to read his Bible. Many of his examples are permitted by God:

    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
  13. Ryan Sproull (7,144 comments) says:

    @ Ryan. Do you support consensual polygamy?

    Yes, if they’re consenting adults and there are no unfair tax advantages involved. What business is it of the nanny state?

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

    @ Lucia

    Not taking it personally, but would genuinely like to see what these guys really think.

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

    How about you answer the question I pose to DPF instead of being a wise-arse

    Your assuming he can. My experience is that most of the anti-Christian bigots here are cultists. They simply swallow whatever Liberal dogma is fed to them without thinking, and when pressed to actually debate a point, they respond with wise-arse comments, because the truth is that they really don’t have a clue.

    You have to be compassionate though. Remember that Liberalism is a disease. It saps the mind and replaces deep thinking with one line slogans. Orwell was right. Liberal dogma is Newspeak.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Lucia Maria (2,428 comments) says:

    Courage Wolf, please don’t turn this into a religious debate – we’ll be compelled to answer and it will derail the whole thread.

    You do this on purpose, don’t you.

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

    Right. Let’s start counting them up.

    People who support consensual polygamy:
    1. Ryan Sproull

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Lucia Maria (2,428 comments) says:

    Lee,

    Adolf is a Christian. He’s alsot got a sense of humour and a finely developed nose for the pedantic insert in an otherwise serious conversation.

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

    @ Courage Wolf

    Why have brought in all this biblical stuff in? You’re missing point.

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

    You do this on purpose, don’t you.

    Yes, he does. He also has no clue about the nature and role of Scripture in the Church. But as I said, we are dealing with cultists who stopped independent thinking a long time ago. It really is a waste of time dealing with them in this kind of forum.

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

    Right. Let’s start counting them up.

    People who support consensual polygamy:
    1. Ryan Sproull

    It wasn’t a rhetorical question. What business is it of the nanny state to direct how consenting adults can marry?

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

    Why have brought in all this biblical stuff in?

    He assumes your opposition is based on a cartoon approach to Scripture, so he trots out bits of it out of any narrative context as a shallow way of debating.

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

    Let’s not let this devolve into a slanging match of Christian uncharity and Liberal misrepresentation.

    Rather, what do people think? If you support gay marriage, do you support consensual polygamy? If not, how would you differentiate approving the legalisation of one but not the other?

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

    It wasn’t a rhetorical question. What business is it of the nanny state to direct how consenting adults can marry?

    I agree. What I disagree with is that the gay “rights” movement wants me to also approve and keep silent if I don’t.

    I agree that the state should stay out of the issue, but then it should also ditch the Human Rights Act, because that is just Nanny violating the right to voluntary association.

    The problem with most of the gay rights movement is that they want freedom for themselves, and slavery for the the rest.

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

    @ Ryan

    “What business is it of the nanny state to direct how consenting adults can marry?”

    I see your point but don’t want to address it. We always discuss this and it turns into a bunch of name calling and baloney from both sides.

    I’d rather see who supports gay marriage but not polygamy. And why.

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

    @EWC

    You’re missing the point David. Where do you draw the line? Philosophically you cannot deny those who desire a three-way or four-way union.

    I think the line that has been proposed, is one based on the informed consent of the parties involved. Something McCroskie responds badly to by invoking cases where such informed consent isn’t possible.

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

    @ Lee01

    Can you please restrain yourself from commenting too much and let the others reveal what they believe on this issue. I think it will be very interesting.

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

    Rather, what do people think?

    I think the biggest threat to Traditionalists and Christians is the social democratic managerial state. So the best option for Christians is to support shrinking the size and power of that state.

    That means getting the state out of our personal lives. If that means two homosexuals having a legal contract and calling it “marriage”, or polygamy, then so be it.

    The state is not our friend.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. BlairM (2,339 comments) says:

    I think if two men want to call themselves “married”, they have as much right to do so as Brian Tamaki does to call himself a “Bishop”. But I should not be obliged to respect either bestowed title. I think that if the government wishes to define marriage, then it oversteps its mandate – marriage is an issue of morality and governments should not legislate morals in cases where the only parties harmed are those being immoral. Get the government out of the marriage business!

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

    @ Chthoniid

    Putting aside McCoskrie’s hyperbole, do you support consensual polygamy?

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

    @ Lee01

    Try not to stray off topic.

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

    BlairM,

    Totally agree with you. Well said.

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

    @ BlairM

    So you don’t oppose consensual polygamy?

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

    EWS

    I didin’t stray off topic, I answered your question.

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

    @ Lee01

    I thought you were going to start talking about the state and social democracy. I think this debate is about how liberal around we going to get on marriage? If gay marriage is ok, then surely consenual polygamy is too? You and I know what we think. I want to see what the other usual suspects think on this particular detail of liberalising marriage.

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

    … and I want to see what DPF really thinks. He was pretty quick to ridicule Bob McCoskrie but I want to see what Farrer thinks about consensual polygamy and how well thought out his liberal view of marriage really is. Is it just to be trendy with his gay chums? Or has he thought it through to the end?

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

    I see your point but don’t want to address it. We always discuss this and it turns into a bunch of name calling and baloney from both sides.

    If you can find an example of me name-calling, I’ll be happy to apologise for it. The baloney might be a bit easier to find.

    I’d rather see who supports gay marriage but not polygamy. And why.

    Fair enough. I’d like to see that too.

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

    EWS,

    the problem with your question: “I think this debate is about how liberal around we going to get on marriage” is that your making assumptions about the “we”. This IS an issue about the role of the state. I can and do oppose gay marriage morally, but I recognise that the sword of the state is double edged. The same power used to enforce Traditional marriage can be used to force my kids to accept homosexuality in state schools.

    So I do think that the issue of the state is important.

    That said, I think the opponents of Traditional marriage are wrong, and are not thinking through the consequences of their attack on Traditional morality in general.

    So I think the best tactic is to get the state out of the issue and let the chips fall where they may.

    Trust God, not Caeser.

    Anyway, thats my two cents worth. I’ll leave the thread to others and move on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Andrei (2,651 comments) says:

    No matter how much the thought police play with words two men shacked up together as man and wife or two women shacked up together as man and wife are never going to be equivalent to a man and a woman joined together in marriage.

    Lets get real here – this is all about making marriage something unimportant so as to separate parents from there children so they can be socialized in the ways of nanny state and not in the ways of their parents.

    They are changing Civil Unions in the UK to be “Marriages” which can be performed in a Church – How long after this change do you suppose before someone demands in a court of Law a nuptial mass for their “wedding” and the Church is done for discriminating on the grounds of “sexuality”.

    We’ve seen this all before – it is Satanic

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    legalised polygamy! how sweet would that be???

    id have two wives. why the hell not.

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

    What’s marriage got to do with morality?
    It’s a legal contract between consenting adults.

    If the contract is violated or needs to be terminated, the courts step in. Not any appointed guardians of morality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Raging Glory (45 comments) says:

    When confronted with the illogicality of supporting “gay marriage” – an oxymoron if ever there was one – DPF refuses to engage but falls back on flippancy – the default setting of the liberal when their ideas are exposed for the nonsense they are. Homosexuality is a sin against God, man and nature. Nevertheless, I fully expect that in time the impotent rebels that comprise the government (it doesn’t matter if its right wing or left wing whatever – they are all mindless, corrupt liberals) will try and create this bizarre parody of marriage in their full tilt rush to self destruction. Thinking themselves wise they have become fools and have been given over to their sins. They will also give them the “right” to adopt children, eg the right to abuse children. Then the sodomites will look about and start searching for more enemies, because this vanishingly small deviant minority cannot rest, impelled by their own consciences they must become activists for their sin. Nevertheless the truth is the truth and God is not mocked. By promoting this evil DPF and his ilk are only storing up judgement for themselves. Take this as a warning: Repent now while there is still time for you know not when the hour of your judgement shall fall upon you and it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

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

    legalised polygamy! how sweet would that be???

    id have two wives. why the hell not.

    They’d have to consent to the whole arrangement too, Dime.

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

    @ Lee01 and Andrei

    My point is that you guys always say the same stuff (the content of which I mostly disagree with) and fill up the bandwidth with material we’ve all heard before. I want to see what the others, especially DPF, think about consensual polygamy and whether they wouldn’t oppose it. I’d be surprised if DPF actually gives his view on this issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Andrei (2,651 comments) says:

    East Wellington Superhero I can’t help it that you are slow and haven’t yet grasped how babies are made – we keep on trying to explain to you that the stork doesn’t leave them in the cabbage patch but the penny just hasn’t dropped for you yet.

    I don’t agree with polygamy by the way but it is less objectionable than gay marriage because it is at least procreative whereas gay marriage is at best just self indulgence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Leverett (6 comments) says:

    Bob McCoskie also misses the point.

    The law is NOT discriminatory and does not prevent gay people from marrying. Any gay man or woman can marry a qualifying person, there is special provision in the law for gay people. Marriage law is neutral to sexual orientation.

    Now, gay people have to abide by the same restrictions as everyone else, namely choosing as their spouse someone of the opposite sex and of the legal age – and for the obvious reasons gay people might not choose to do that.

    Correctly putting it in those terms, however, establishes that this is not about fighting discrimination so much as it is about upturning the 6,000 year consensus on what marriage is, what its function is and what we expect of it as an institution.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Lucia Maria (2,428 comments) says:

    EWS,

    If Lee and Andrei say stuff you disagree with, it would be better to argue the points rather than telling them to be quiet. They have every right to be involved in the conversation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Joseph Carpenter (214 comments) says:

    It would be sweet Mr Dime until your wives divorce you (and remain married to each other) and take two thirds of all your property (plus income palimony if you’re a rich prick business man). And then there are the offspring: if you think the Family Court is already biased against fathers re custody/access/child support/abuse allegations wait until you have two or more (lesbian) mothers facing off against one father – you’ll be a dead man walking.

    I would also be interested in knowing what possible arguments (if any) there are as to why if marriage is extended to include homosexual unions why the “marriage” franchise should not therefore rationally also include polygamy or any other arrangement (e.g. incest of infertile relatives) if consent of the parties is the only criteria.

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

    @ Andrei

    “East Wellington Superhero I can’t help it that you are slow and haven’t yet grasped how babies are made” Yes, I know that. And I know the proposterious nature of the request to ask two men to create a baby. I don’t disagree with you.

    @ Lucia Maria

    Yes, of course they are free to comment. My point was that the interesting stuff (revealing the folly of the logic consequence of permitting marriage based on arbitrary feelings) could get lost in the somewhat repetitive commentry that Lee01 tends to make.

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

    berend said..”..What was the first thing they did in Lybia? Enabling polygamous marriage…”

    the second thing they did was took away was a divorced womans’ right to the family home..

    ..the new ‘democratic’-regime in libya..

    ..is sytematically dismantling the womens rights enshrined in law by ghaddafi..

    http://whoar.co.nz/2011/revulsion-resistance-angry-words-from-tripoli-university-%C2%A0/

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    “or any other arrangement (e.g. incest of infertile relatives) if consent of the parties is the only criteria.”

    I have been told by a libertarian that there are tests to detect birth defects due to incest. I assume an abortion was the option if a birth defect was detected.

    We have yet to see an argument if homosexual marriage is legalised the why not group marriage of incest between consenting adults.

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

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/fiscally-im-a-rightwing-nutjob-but-on-social-issue,20486/

    Says it all really.

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

    I would also be interested in knowing what possible arguments (if any) there are as to why if marriage is extended to include homosexual unions why the “marriage” franchise should not therefore rationally also include polygamy or any other arrangement (e.g. incest of infertile relatives) if consent of the parties is the only criteria.

    Joseph and Chuck,

    The question of fertility in incest isn’t the only factor in play – there is also the threat of grooming, which can undermine consent even when someone reaches adulthood. I think that is reason enough for it to be in a different class from polygamy, straight marriage and gay marriage.

    It’s also a question of lawful sex, rather than legally recognised marriage, which again puts it in a separate realm of discussion. Gay sex, straight sex and group sex among consenting adults is legal. Incestuous sex is illegal (I think?) for the reasons we’ve already mentioned. Marriage doesn’t even come into it.

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

    Polygamy IS traditional marriage….and has been for most of human history. And these weird Christians somehow think marriage was their creation….ill informed fanatics…

    As for incest…why not? Aside from the ick factor for most people as long as its consensual incest between adults then whats the issue?…mental issues for kids..? Contraception ….next reason?

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

    The state should have no role in marriage.

    Ron Paul on gay marriage

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Leverett (6 comments) says:

    @The Scorned

    Correct, polygamy is traditional marriage – which should be defined as the union between one man and at least one woman. Of course, we ban polygamy in the west for the obvious policy reasons – frankly, it is no longer essential to ensure the propagation of the species now that medicine is so advanced – but polygamy itself does not run contrary to the essential procreative nature of marriage.

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

    East Wellington Superhero (464) Says:
    October 27th, 2011 at 3:31 pm

    @ Courage Wolf

    Why have brought in all this biblical stuff in? You’re missing point.

    No I’m not actually. The point is that people like you are only against gay marriage because you are a Christian. Of all the important causes in the world, it is gay marriage that stirs up the religious the most. Not world famine, not poverty, not anything else. Gay marriage is it. Clearly it is such a important issue that God had to send His Son down to Earth to die for all of humanity for it.

    http://i.imgur.com/1LxKB.jpg

    http://i.imgur.com/tBH7P.jpg

    http://artoftrolling.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/56230a71-4f62-4ab9-abbd-7a79fa8a6821.jpg

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

    Firstly, it is true that marriage by definition is discriminatory. A black person cannot legally marry a white person. But neither can a whole lot of other people. A five-year-old boy cannot marry. Three people cannot get married to each other. A married man can’t marry another person. A child cannot marry her pet goldfish. A father cannot marry his daughter. A football team cannot enact group marriage the list is endless. It is disingenuous to complain about rights being taken away, when they never existed in the first place.

    Furthermore, Christians often use Galatians 3:28 to say it is now permissible for interracial marriage or the abolishment of slavery. Notice what it says about men and women?

    Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

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

    @ Courage Wolf

    I was refering to your random out-of-context vomit of bible quotes. Yes, it looks very clever; like you’ve just poked a whole lot of holes in Christianity. But actually you’re so off the mark with regard to portraying what the intergrated view of Christianity really is, that no social studies student past 5th form would take you seriously.

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

    I’m very well aware of what Christianity is thank you very much, and no social studies student past 5th form (who hasn’t been indoctrinated by their parents) would take the existence of a randomly angry in the OT and punitive in the NT sky fairy seriously.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. simonway (387 comments) says:

    polygamy… is at least procreative

    Not same-sex polygamy!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Joseph Carpenter (214 comments) says:

    I see Ryan Sproull, so the criteria is no longer just consent but the possibility of grooming. Tough luck for anyone who studied together, or worked together, or flatted together or played sport together etc prior to their relationship because obviously they can’t be allowed to marry. However all relatives who aren’t in contact (or which there are very many now in our modern “blended” family era) are good to go.

    Why are you such a gensanguisphobic bigot? Why can’t little Johnny the Third marry Grandpa John senior whom he had no contact with up until recently, they love each so much and only want to be together.

    And as to sex I thought the whole entire point of allowing gay marriage was that sexual relationships SHOULD NOT BE relevant to marriage? Answer = obviously change the law to make incestual sex (non-reproductive) legal as per homo sex in 1986.

    Plus of course you deny blood relatives the basic human right of a platonic chaste marriage – but thats alright because a Law book says so (this is of course entirely different to saying the Bible book says so). At least The Scorned is rational and consistent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    @ ryan – bugga!

    @ Joseph Carpenter – what an awful scenario!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. wat dabney (3,756 comments) says:

    Lucia,

    Bob is not entirely correct, as a homosexual can legally marry: he can marry a woman, and she can marry a man. Homosexuals just have to follow the eligibility rules for marriage, just like every one else.

    And if we change the context of your statement to refer to inter-racial marriages we find that blacks and whites are both entitled to (seperately) marry, they “just have to follow the eligibility rules.”

    So you’d be quite happy with a ban on inter-racial marriages one can conclude.

    The same point applies to Bob’d lame op ed.

    It is disingenuous to complain about rights being taken away, when they never existed in the first place.

    The point then, Bob, is that the state is granting privileges in a discriminatory manner.

    A child cannot marry her pet goldfish.

    But they can write op eds for the Dom Post, apparently.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Joseph Carpenter (214 comments) says:

    Again I ask what EWS is saying (and Bob though his examples are stupid):
    If marriage is redefined to allow homosexual marriage, what rational grounds are there for not also allowing (with consenting parties):
    – Polygamous marriage?
    – No-fertility incestous marriage?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Andrei (2,651 comments) says:

    So you’d be quite happy with a ban on inter-racial marriages one can conclude.

    Living proof of the utter vapidity of the liberal mind – if you can conclude something like that from anything that Lucia said you are clearly exceptionally stupid.

    What privileges is the state granting in a discriminatory manner, Wat Dabney?

    I know leftoids believe the all powerful beneficent STATE can do anything but sadly it aint so, its just a foolish fantasy and despite changing the meaning of words the sad fact remains it takes a man and a woman to make a baby.

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

    Andrei (1,076) Says:

    Living proof of the utter vapidity of the liberal mind – if you can conclude something like that from anything that Lucia said you are clearly exceptionally stupid.

    What privileges is the state granting in a discriminatory manner, Wat Dabney?

    I know leftoids believe the all powerful beneficent STATE can do anything but sadly it aint so, its just a foolish fantasy and despite changing the meaning of words the sad fact remains it takes a man and a woman to make a baby.

    And what privileges are being taken away if a black person is allowed to marry within their own race and a white person within their own race? And since when has the definition of marriage meant that one must be able to procreate? I suppose you are in favour of banning heterosexuals who cannot reproduce from being able to marry?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Leverett (6 comments) says:

    The comparison with inter-racial marriage is facile. Fails to logic test. We would justly see such a ban as wrong because then people would not enjoy the same rights based on their race. If you say that a black man can’t get married to a white woman when a white man can, then that IS discriminatory.

    Under current marriage law, everyone enjoys the same rights – with the same limitations. Just because limitations exist does not mean those limitations are discrimination.

    As a matter of what we think marriage is, sure, it’s now up for debate – sure. That doesn’t make it a matter of discrimination, however.

    I don’t really like paying rates, but that doesn’t mean that by forcing me to pay them, I am being discriminated against on the basis of my political beliefs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. wat dabney (3,756 comments) says:

    Living proof of the utter vapidity of the liberal mind – if you can conclude something like that from anything that Lucia said you are clearly exceptionally stupid.

    We can conclude that because the exact same argument she proposed to defend the ban on gay marriages can be deployed in support of a ban on inter-racial marriages.

    If it’s a worthless argument in one case it is equally worthless in the other.

    By all means let her proudly say she’s a bigot who favours state-enforced prejudice against those she doesn’t like, but let’s not pretend she’s put forward a valid argument here.

    What privileges is the state granting in a discriminatory manner, Wat Dabney?

    The privileges associated with marriage, clearly. Tax and inheritance, for example.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Andrei (2,651 comments) says:

    And since when has the definition of marriage meant that one must be able to procreate?

    Since forever – it has always been about procreation. It is about establishing kinship, who your father is, who your mother is, who your siblings are and who your cousins etc are. That way people know who needs to be responsible for which children – and who is inappropriate to breed with who and so forth.

    I suppose you are in favour of banning heterosexuals who cannot reproduce from being able to marry?

    In theory they cannot – in practice it is an assumption that a particular man can breed with a particular woman but if it was without a doubt known one was sterile they could not be married in the Church anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Andrei (2,651 comments) says:

    “What privileges is the state granting in a discriminatory manner, Wat Dabney?”

    The privileges associated with marriage, clearly. Tax and inheritance, for example.

    What tax privileges would they be , Wat Dabney? The ability to claim for a dependent spouse has long long gone and as for inheritance you can make anybody you want beneficiaries of your will.

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

    Why do the religious lay claim to marriage?

    I can get married at the council by a plumber if I wish. Does this in anyway invalidate the legality of my marriage i.e not a hymn in sight

    When the marriage goes sour and its over you don’t call in the priest to sort things out, you call in civilians to deal with it by secular law.

    It will take an act of Parliament to legalise marriage between homosexuals, not an act of the Catholic or Anglican Churches.

    Marriage vows do not have to contain any reference to religion whatsoever it the victims don’t wish it.

    So, why do the usual suspects pound on that marriage is some religious ritual, its not the entire thing is secular.

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

    Leverett (6) Says:

    October 27th, 2011 at 6:50 pm
    The comparison with inter-racial marriage is facile. Fails to logic test. We would justly see such a ban as wrong because then people would not enjoy the same rights based on their race. If you say that a black man can’t get married to a white woman when a white man can, then that IS discriminatory.

    Obviously not what the Church used to think. In fact, this is worth reposting from the other thread:

    The fundamentalist evangelical church is the natural heir of pharisaism. They have a well deserved reputation for being judgemental and moralistic. The conservative protestant evangelicals have always taken what they call a strong stand on issues of right and wrong. They have always stood firmly for Biblical standards as set forth in the Old Testament and the New. They have always defended these standards in the face of social and cultural disintegration. The following are some examples:

    In the founding charter of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest protestant denomination in the United States, just prior to the civil war, the founding fathers took a firm stand in defense of slavery which they believed to be ordained by God and justified through the references to slavery in the scripture (Eph 6: 5-9, Col 3:22-4:1).

    Many conservative evangelicals took a strong stand against women’s suffrage around the turn of the century. They argued that the Bible clearly specifies that women should have no place in the governance of men and that to give women the right to vote would be a clear violation of the laws of God (1 Tim 2:11 – 3:13; 1 Cor 14:33-35).

    In the early decades of this century, conservative evangelicals took a strong stand favoring prohibition. This issue was so important to them that they violated their own doctrine of separation of church and state to lend their full weight to the ratification of the 18th amendment. This too was done based on clear scriptural authority (Rom 14:21, 1 Cor 6:9-10, Eph 5:18), while ignoring scripture to the contrary (1 Tim 5:23, John 2:1-11). In standing for prohibition, the church participated unwittingly in laying the foundations of organized crime in the United States. The structures and alliances which developed during prohibition for distribution of moonshine are now used to distribute drugs. As a result, prohibition may well have been the most socially destructive event in our nations history. (For more on this topic see Sermon Number Nine).

    Conservative evangelicals took a strong stand against allowing divorced individuals full participation in church life. This too was based on strong scriptural authority (Mark 10:1-12, Mat 19:1-12, Luke 16:18). For many years divorced individuals were not asked to teach Sunday School or hold office in the churches.

    Conservative evangelicals took a strong stand against racial integration. Churches which accepted African-Americans as members were removed from fellowship in the local associations and censured in various ways.

    In fact, conservative evangelicals have been on the wrong side of every major social issue in the past 150 years. Is it any wonder that the church has lost its place in society as a moral authority. Is it any wonder that evangelical fundamentalists have become a laughing stock.

    The message of Christ is not about right and wrong. In the Bible it was the Pharisees that had right and wrong all figured out. The message of Christ is about loving people, good or bad, right or wrong. We should be following the example of Christ who condemned the Pharisees (who were the great authorities on what was right and what was wrong), but did not condemn the woman taken in adultery, or the Samaritan woman, or Zacchaeus, or a multitude of other sinners He encountered.

    This is why the conservative church is becoming more of a laughing stock in this country. It is not due to some prophesied apostasy. People are waking up to the manipulative and coercive approaches to getting people to “obey.” The problem is not a populace that is repulsed by the life that Jesus offers, but with a church leadership ensconced in moralism and legalism, that holds to a form of Godliness, but denies its working power (2 Tim 3:5). The power of life change in the gospel is through identification with Jesus Christ, because you’ve come to like who he is and love the God He represents. You have an internalization of the lived experience of God’s love in your own heart. You see the compassion and kindness that Jesus shows to the lost, weak, and marginalized and you identify with his heart and seek to become like him in ministering to these same social outcasts. And, as you experience the love of God poured out in your heart, you are changed and internalize this love to become someone loving yourself (Rom 5:5, 1 Jn 4:8, 16). This is law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:2), the royal law of Love (Rom 13:8-10; James 2:12). Transformation happens from the inside out as we build a relationship with Jesus in the Spirit and internalize His love for us.

    I would encourage you to examine yourself and ask, “Why am I doing what I’m doing?” Is it because you love Jesus and want to be like him and trust Him as your teacher and guide? Is it because you’ve had a life-changing and healing experience of God’s love in your heart that you hope to bring to the lives of other people? Or, is it because you are afraid that God’s going to be angry and “get ya” either in this life or in hell afterward if you don’t do it?” This is why I submit that Universalism is the only solution to getting the terror out of our religion once and for all. If we realize that God corrects us when we make mistakes and that He will train us and guide us into a wholesome spirituality throughout this life and the one to come, it removes the fear that paralyzes us and prohibits us from truly changing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Joseph Carpenter (214 comments) says:

    And still no answer.

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

    Andrei (1,078) Says:

    Since forever – it has always been about procreation. It is about establishing kinship, who your father is, who your mother is, who your siblings are and who your cousins etc are. That way people know who needs to be responsible for which children – and who is inappropriate to breed with who and so forth.

    Sounds like you just pulled that definition out of your ass. Even most Christians in Churches today would say it’s about companionship. Secondly – how did Adam and Eve’s two sons procreate? Why were their entire cities for Cain to run away to when Adam and Eve were the first two people? And at what point did it become not OK to have incestuous sex in the Bible? At what point was polygamy deemed wrong given the above examples of relationships in the Bible in my first post in this thread?

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

    By the way – why aren’t Christians campaigning against divorce in all circumstances besides adultery? If all sins are the same and that hating a bro is as bad as murder and checking out a hot babe is as wrong as raping her (according to Jesus), then why aren’t Christians campagining against divorce as vehemently and show as much judgmentalism as they do against homosexuality?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. wat dabney (3,756 comments) says:

    The comparison with inter-racial marriage is facile. Fails to logic test. We would justly see such a ban as wrong because then people would not enjoy the same rights based on their race. If you say that a black man can’t get married to a white woman when a white man can, then that IS discriminatory.

    But that’s precisely the point. You can’t – except on grounds of your own selective bigotry – decry racial discrimination while at the same time supporting other forms of discrimination.

    By all means revel in your bigotry, but don’t pretend you’re making a logical case here.

    The various religions can think up all the magical ceremonies they wish and be as bigoted as they wish, but the state must treat everyone equally. And that means treating heterosexuals and homosexuals equally in the same manner that black and white are treated equally.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Joseph Carpenter (214 comments) says:

    Mr Wolf, I take it you support homosexual marriage. Do you also support the legalization of (given consenting parties):
    1) Polygamous marriage?
    2) No-fertility incestuous marriage?
    3) Bigamous marriage?

    If not, why not (open question to any supporter of gay marriage)?

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

    Yes, I support the right of consenting parties to enter into contracts with one another with the benefits granted by the state to one man and one woman that enter into such a contract. Your turn Joseph – I take it you support Christianity. Do you also support the fact that God permitted:

    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
  80. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Joe

    Yes I do to all three of your points, given that all parties are consenting.

    Just answer me this please. How does the fact that my neighbours are brother and sister and live together as man and wife and have done for 26 years 4 months affect you in your little corner of the world.? What difference did that make to your day today?

    How did it affect your income, your happiness and you legal right to drive a motor vehcile.?

    My answer is not one iota, looking forward to yours

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    “In theory they cannot – in practice it is an assumption that a particular man can breed with a particular woman but if it was without a doubt known one was sterile they could not be married in the Church anyway.”

    What church?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    “How did it affect your income, your happiness and you legal right to drive a motor vehcile.?

    My answer is not one iota, looking forward to yours”

    You are not just a dag but a whole sheep’s ass.

    You ask a question and answer it and assume no one disagrees with you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Joseph Carpenter (214 comments) says:

    Mr Wolf I’m not a christian and would reject religious/transcendent reasons as valid for an argument.

    Mr Paul that fact does indeed not affect my income, happiness or motor license at all.

    Good on both of you for making your view clear and having a consistent/logical position.
    My question is therefore not applicable to you, I was really wanting to know the reasoning from people who support gay marriage but don’t support polygamy, bigamy, incest, etc marriage and derided EWS and Bob McCoskrie (Bob’s perhaps deserved for his stupid examples but not his reasoning).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. nasska (11,503 comments) says:

    All this waffle over what is essentially a support agreement between two people to provide for any offspring but hijacked by the xtians & wrapped up in feel good religious claptrap.

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

    Well Chuck

    I do realize that there are the unenlightened out there that don’t agree with me, but I was directing my comment at Joe and his comment which revolved around consenting.

    I am against hetrosexual marriage where there are partners who are not consenting but we are not going to open that can of worms and bring the entire suburb of Mt Roskill into it.

    It all about consent and legality, nothing about religion or morals. People are bringing emotion to the party.

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

    OK, now for real discrimination….
    Naturalists.
    Naturalism has been recorded in ALL species. Yet, dressing up has been found in only one….
    What standard of “natural” are we using again…?”
    Now, which bigot could be opposed to such natural behaviour?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Paul, you answer is helpful. It very much supports Bob McCoskrie’s view. Most people know that incest is wrong and should not be legal under any circumstances. However, the fact that many liberals support this on the basis of a flawed ideology might make some people think twice about homosexual marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. reid (16,454 comments) says:

    They are changing Civil Unions in the UK to be “Marriages” which can be performed in a Church

    Yes Andrei, on another note the UK is also changing “father” and “mother” to “parent 1″ and “parent 2″ which are the new terms REQUIRED to be used on all official forms.

    If that’s not anti-family, then what is. And remember, marriage = family. They are inseparable. When people attack either one, they are also attacking the other.

    It is NOT a human rights issue. This is what I find drop-dead mental about people who support this yet are otherwise rational. Gays have ALL the legal rights, already. They HAVE all the rights.

    It’s the label they want and it’s the only thing they don’t have. And these same otherwise rational supporters of their campaign apparently have no idea of the importance of what they advocate we (straight people who support strong families) willingly give away. They seem to imagine, it’s only a label, it doesn’t matter.

    Well newsflash, if labels aren’t important, then why precisely is the UK investing millions in its extremely straightened current financial state, on changing labels from father and mother to parent 1 and 2? Why? Aren’t there more important things to spend their money on, right now? You might, if you support the gays, yet are conservative, ask yourself why the fuck, is the govt of the UK, doing that, now, if label’s aren’t important.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. wat dabney (3,756 comments) says:

    Other Andy,

    I absolutely agree.

    Gough earned the title Naked Rambler by walking unclothed from Lands End to John O’Groats after quitting his job as a lorry driver.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-14649394

    Have to admire him.

    It is our natural state. Absolutely nothing wrong with it.

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

    One quick one Chuck,, why is incest wrong if the parties are consenting adults, leaving out the minute chance of a couple of thumbs on each hand of any kids ( I always think of Christchurch when I type that).

    But why is it wrong, seriously, ( its not for me, but like you noted not everyone thinks like me, it’d be a great place but…)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. grumpyoldhori (2,362 comments) says:

    Bible bashers are against gays getting married, in that case fuck making it legal we will make it compulsory for gays to marry each other.

    And the great part, all those xtian heads exploding.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. wat dabney (3,756 comments) says:

    marriage = family. They are inseparable

    Vast numbers of unmarried but perfectly good parents rather proves you wrong there.

    As does the fact that there are plenty of married couples who don’t want children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. nasska (11,503 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay

    Don’t know how inbreeding would pan out with humans but it isn’t advisable even with farm stock. Line breeding reduces the risk but can narrow the gene pool both for better & worse. Father/daughter & mother/son are preferable to siblings.

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

    Nasska,, yea got that but, just on.Chucks’s………..most people know incest is wrong….. but why is what I wanted to know.

    My point is apart from a socail taboo ( habit) there really nothing wrong with it and its not like sexuality where you either dig the opposite or the same sex.

    I don’t know of anyone thats ever been in a consenting incestuous relationship, so its not there there a huge demand and if it were legalised we’d all suddenly shoot through with our sisters, yours maybe but not mine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Paul i would think is should be self evident that incest is bad for society. I will do my best to answer your question but first answer mine as it will help me with trying to explain what is self evident.

    What harm does it do to society if a lonely farmer has sex with one of his flock and the sheep seems not to mind? From memory the penalty for sheep shagging is a lot more that for extreme cruelty to animals. Is this just?

    Does the right of the farmer come ahead of the rights of the majority of New Zealanders when they visit Australia?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. reid (16,454 comments) says:

    Vast numbers of unmarried but perfectly good parents rather proves you wrong there.

    wat I’m talking about the propaganda image of it: i.e. corrupting the family unit in people’s minds over time.

    Whether or not a minority of married couples don’t have children in today’s society today here and now, isn’t relevant to my argument.

    In people’s minds, marriage and family used to be and almost still is, universally inseparable, in people’s minds. It did. As a social concept, this has lasted since we were in caves and the family unit is the most cohesive structure in humankind, and these people who want gay marriage want to destroy it, along with a lot of useful idiots who either don’t care one way or the other (I mean, it’s just a label, isn’t it), or alternatively, who think it’s about human wights.

    Marriage aka family as a concept has been being eroded since divorce kicked in, over the decades that is being slowly but slowly slice the elephant degraded just a bit more just a bit more that’s it, another little slice, how about a label, how about a law, etc etc etc etc etc.

    THIS wat is the point. This gay “marriage” is a critical juncture, much more important than say, passing a law allowing primary age kids to have an abortion without their parents knowing about it (that was another one of Hulun’s). Much more important than that, in terms of: destroying the family as a concept in people’s minds.

    So wat, this is what the point is, it’s a future social dynamic I am pointing to. It’s the consequences 1-2 generations down the track in people’s minds, that is in our collective hands today.

    Look what divorce has wrought. Do you want to deal your children yet another blow, so their children don’t even know, what a marriage and a family is, as we have known it, since we lived in caves?

    Sound dramatic?

    Like I said, if it’s not so important, how come the gays won’t just drop it? Why? They already have every right, don’t they? Why do they want the label? Why?

    Their objective is to destroy it in people’s minds, and just cause some people don’t see that on the horizon, doesn’t mean it’s not happening.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Andrei (2,651 comments) says:

    We the Bolsheviks created the Soviet Union they wanted to abolish marriage and the family – and let people sleep with whoever they wanted. The children, so they hoped, would be raised in State nurseries by “professional” child raisers who would raise them as good little worker bees well fitted for life in the socialist paradise.

    However introducing this wonderful state of affairs proved problematical and indeed was such a radical departure from human nature itself that this aspect of the revolution had to be put on hold because implementing it would probably lead to another revolution.

    However this dream hasn’t died and it is slowly being introduced into our culture by stealth – it is no coincidence the early feminists were all marxists nor is it a coincidence that some of the loudest proponents for gay “marriage” are feminists who were hostile to heterosexual marriage in the seventies and eighties who managed to get policies introduced that undermine it.

    And entirely related is the fact that about 40% of New Zealands children today are dependent on benefits for their daily sustenance – a consequence of the family smashing policies introduced in the name of fairness and equality

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. reid (16,454 comments) says:

    However this dream hasn’t died

    But of course it has Andrei. Communism perished in the 1990’s Berlin Wall implosion. What, are you saying that was all a fake, with actors?

    Yeh right.

    [!-- /sarcasm--]

    If only some people really didn’t think like that, there wouldn’t be quite so much clamour for gay “marriage”

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

    Chuck, Of course I see what you mean perfectly, but I was suggesting that the fact that two people of the same sex getting married is neither here nor there for us. As individuals they do not effect me at all, just like a brother and sister doing the wild thing in a consenting manner.

    If they consent who I am to say no you can’t get married,. Its a big nothing.

    You may remember when Naida Glavish had the effrontery to answer the phone with ‘kiaora’, you’d have thought the sky was falling, it was unbelievable. Did this upset my lifestyle, no “not one iota’, but Mr. and Mrs New Zealand went fucking berserk but at the end of the day, whats happened ? nothing ,we moved on, who cares?, nobody probably remembers that shit anyway, so if two consenting adults of the same sex wish to get married good luck to them, its not my business, certainly not a church’s business. The world will not end.

    The churches do not own marriage, they just insinuated their way into it and used it as a revenue stream

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Andrei (2,651 comments) says:

    The Governments do not own marriage, they just insinuated their way into it and used it as a revenue stream

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

    Chuck: Paul i would think is should be self evident that incest is bad for society. I will do my best to answer your question but first answer mine as it will help me with trying to explain what is self evident.

    Sorry but what does the supposed negative value to a non existent abstraction called ‘society” have to do with denying actually existing people their inalienable natural rights to liberty,property and pursuit of their own consensual happiness? Individual rights are always above and before any “societal” concerns…indeed the idea of a conflict between the two is contradictory nonsense….as a society is just a post-grouping abstraction of individuals then there can be no clash of genuine values when the individuals comprising it act withing their individual rights.

    For a Conservative to try and use this “societal” ( collectivist,common good) argument re Gays,morals and supposed fallout for wider “society” is to show yet again that Conservatism is just the flip side of left wing Socialism which makes the same flawed argument re economics and market choice….

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

    The Church did exactly the same thing Andrei…and it doesn’t,and never did “own” marriage either …people do….and each can and should make of it what they will. As long as the rest of us aren’t force to fund it or any consequences or tolerate it on our own time and property then who cares…?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Andrei (2,651 comments) says:

    But you do fund the consequences you nong – the destruction of marriage means you the taxpayer picks up the pieces in terms of paying for the sustenance of fatherless children

    You also fund lesbians who want fertility treatments

    You also fund the STD clinics the clients of whom are overwhelmingly in the jargon of this modern age – MSM or men who have sex with men.

    And when the people have been asked they have said NO – we don’t believe in GAY Marriage >even in California so the activists have turned to the courts to get their way.

    So cut the crap my friend

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. reid (16,454 comments) says:

    The Scorned, it’s not about the church, any church, it’s about humankind. This debate transcends anyone’s religious perspective, for it’s about family vs state. It’s about which is one’s anchor point throughout one’s life in times of crisis and in times of normality.

    This is what is at stake.

    then who cares…

    Exactly. Why do the gays want the label. Why?

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

    The Church did exactly the same thing Andrei…and it doesn’t,and never did “own” marriage either

    I agree, the Church never has had a monopoly on marriage As reid note, marriage between men and women (whether monogamous, polyandrous or polygynous) is a common feature of societies the world over, regardless of whether they are Christian or not.  Marriage is usually, however, overseen/administered/required by the main religion/s of whichever society you want to mention, but it is not specifically a religious institution in any way.

    The thing that the Church (i.e. the Christian Church) appears to be consistent about is that sexual intercourse outside of marriage is sinful, and that intercourse within marriage is good.    Therefore, by my understanding, the Church does not ‘own’ marriage in any way, it simply requires it in order to engage in sexual intercourse that is not sinful, and therefore outside the accepted bounds of that religion. In short, unmarried or extra-marital sex, bad, married sex, good.

    Islam, of course, has the same principles, as does Judaism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Scott Chris (6,137 comments) says:

    Reid says:- “Exactly. Why do the gays want the label. Why?”

    It is the human condition reid.

    Imagine if Windows was the “The Civil Union” and Apple was “The Marriage”

    Telling the gays they can’t have Apple makes it even more desirable.

    And they won’t shut up until you let them have it.

    So let them have it. It’s just a freakin’ label.

    Labels are physical, not meta-physical.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. reid (16,454 comments) says:

    It was a rhetorical question Scott.

    Read my above posts which directly rebut the very points you raise.

    IMO.

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

    To answer your rhetorical question reid:

    http://c1ecolocalizercom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2011/04/marriage.jpg

    Why not call black marriage civil unions and white marriages marriage?

    Why not call interracial marriages civil unions but white marriages marriage?

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

    An Australian Rugby player has stated he will not marry his long-term girlfriend until the country legalises gay marriage.

    David Pocock has come out in support of gay marriage equality and has also criticised those who use Christianity to attack homosexuals. The Rugby player, who is a Christian himself, has spoken in favour of gay marriage equality just days before the World Cup finale against South Africa.

    In an interview with the New Zealand Herald the leading player said he wouldn’t marry his girlfriend until gay marriage was legalised.

    “Being brought up in a Christian home and still identifying as Christian, I get pretty annoyed with the Christian lobbies around the world who say gay marriage destroys the family and all that kind of rubbish. They claim to follow someone who always stood up for the oppressed and marginalised. I guess it is a fear of the unknown – if you talk to someone who doesn’t like gay people you can almost guarantee that they don’t know too many. These are the prejudices that you have to challenge and break down. Emma and I decided not to get legally married until our gay friends could do the same.”

    Queue angry Kiwiblog fundamentalists foaming at their mouths claiming Pocock isn’t a true believer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Queue angry Kiwiblog fundamentalists foaming at their mouths claiming Pocock isn’t a true believer.

    Just what exactly is a Kiwiblog fundamentalist?

    Those who believe Kiwiblog is the one and only source of wisedom, the revelation of the cold hard truth delivered by the penguin and his desciples?

    Read Kiwiblog or I’ll blow you up?

    ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. BlairM (2,339 comments) says:

    So you don’t oppose consensual polygamy?

    Depends what you mean by oppose. I don’t think it should be illegal. I wouldn’t be bothered living next door to a gaggle of sister wives. But I believe ultimately God calls us to be monogamous and hetrosexual, because He wants us to be happy, to be at peace with Him, and above all, to have really freaking awesome sex lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Unsolicitedious (13 comments) says:

    Marriage law is discriminatory against the participants, yet not for the celebrant or the Minister. If a gay person can marry a hetero couple why can’t they marry each other? Marriage law has already been changed. It is no longer based purely on the religious institution it once was.

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

    see Ryan Sproull, so the criteria is no longer just consent but the possibility of grooming.

    The criteria is adult consent. The issue here is that grooming can call into question what, at first glance, may seem like consent.

    Why are you such a gensanguisphobic bigot? Why can’t little Johnny the Third marry Grandpa John senior whom he had no contact with up until recently, they love each so much and only want to be together.

    Obviously grooming’s not an option there, so to be consistent I would have to say that if they’re both consenting adults, it’s up to them.

    And as to sex I thought the whole entire point of allowing gay marriage was that sexual relationships SHOULD NOT BE relevant to marriage? Answer = obviously change the law to make incestual sex (non-reproductive) legal as per homo sex in 1986.

    The whole point of “allowing” two consenting adults to marry each other regardless of their sex is, to my mind, a matter of recognising it’s none of the state’s business.

    Plus of course you deny blood relatives the basic human right of a platonic chaste marriage – but thats alright because a Law book says so (this is of course entirely different to saying the Bible book says so). At least The Scorned is rational and consistent.

    If you think I’m saying something’s right or wrong because it’s in the law, I don’t think you’ve been paying attention.

    If I’m to be consistent, marriage between consenting adult blood relatives who have never been in a situation where one could have groomed the other and where pregnancy is prevented should be able to marry.

    I doubt the situation would likely come up, but as you pointed out, the criteria is consent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Paul, it sounds like you are a libertarian. I read Atlas Shrugged almost 50 years ago and rejected its philosophy. Libertarians believe if everyone accepted their philosophy we would live in some sort of utopia. Many of the proponents of this flawed philosophy do not believe in democracy.

    Most people can see how incest between consenting adults would adversely affect other family members. But more importantly, as others have pointed out such a move like homosexual marriage further undermines normal conventional marriage. This is detrimental to society.

    There are of course exceptions but on average children do a lot better brought up in a family of consisting of their mother and father married to each other.

    Laws should take into account individual freedom but balance that against what is good for society. The best way for this is to happen for voters to have a voice and have the right to reject bad legislation with voters veto like in Switzerland.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. rafe31 (1 comment) says:

    “Progressives love to mock conservatives for their ‘old-fashioned’ beliefs but the fact is that if you philosophically support gay-marriage because people simply ‘want to’ then you cannot deny other arrangements. And to build a community on mere ‘wants’ is a radical change, not some natural ‘progress’. Would you support those who want a three-way marriage?”

    Who says gay marriage is a mere want? Was a black person wanting to marry a white person a mere want? No. It is a fundamental freedom to do so. And discrimination not allowing so. The article suggests that allowing marriage between 2 human persons cant be made up, but an african person could not marry a european untill the law recognized that basic fundamental right. That right never existed in the first place according to law, so similarly in the case of gay marriage.

    And to ChuckBird;

    You mention that on average children are brought up better in a family where the parents are marries. Thus, wouldnt it better to allow two gay parents to bring a child being married instead if living as two individuals under the same roof? Gay couples are already bringing up children and by not allowing commiteed couples to get married, we not only ostracize children in our community, we refuse to allow them as good a life as other children and we are denying love. In a world where divorces are so common, why not accept true faithful love where it exists between two consenting human beings? And how is this bad society overall? Would love it if you could help me out here. I think its worse for two people to be denied their ablity to live in a fully legal and equal relationship recognized as equal by the law. You cant say something is detrimental and thus, lo and behold it is. Where is your proof? Thanks. =)

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

    Laws should take into account individual freedom but balance that against what is good for society.

    And who decides what is good for society? Who decides how other adults should live, and be forced to do so through the machinery of the state and law?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    The majority.

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

    How ironic Chuck Bird given that you regularly post on the ACT party’s Facebook wall. I never knew that you believed that Labour in the 90s and National now should decide how other adults should live because they are the majority.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    “I never knew that you believed that Labour in the 90s and National now should decide how other adults should live because they are the majority.”

    I don’t. By majority I mean the majority of voters not the majority of MPs. It is an outrage that MPs can ignore the vast majority of good parents. I would like to see ACT adopt a policy of a voters veto similar to Switzerland where if a reasonable number of signatures are on a petition this could force a binding referendum on whether the legislation becomes law or not.

    ACT has a number of libertarians in the party. They are entitled to their views but so am I. Some members of the party including me were not happy with various things that happened over the last couple of years and the last six months particualrly. However, just about all the members are happy to put past differences behind us and focus on getting as many high quality candidates elected as possible.

    If ACT is going to remain in Parliament it almost certainly depends on John Banks winning Epsom. ACT like most parties realise that the party will self destruct if there is an attempt to force MPs to force against what they strongly beleive to be morally wrong.

    I hope that the infighting in ACT over but a lot depends on the militant libertarians within the party show as much tolerance of others with a different point of view than they demand for themselves.

    I very much doubt if John Banks will ever vote for or support liberalising drug laws or homosexual marriage and/or adoption. He has my full support and I doubt if I am the only ACT member who holds this view.

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

    The majority.

    What qualifies the majority to know better than an individual how they should live their own lives or which happiness they should pursue (beyond actions that directly impinge on that same freedom for others)?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

    Winston Churchill

    I would go with Churchill before Anne Rynd let alone Lindsay Perigo and day/

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

    Chuck Bird says:

    I very much doubt if John Banks will ever vote for or support liberalising drug laws or homosexual marriage and/or adoption. He has my full support and I doubt if I am the only ACT member who holds this view.

    Following from this then, if one day a reasonable number of signatures are on a petition to liberalise drug laws or homosexual marriage and/or adoption, I suppose you would say Banks is being anti-democratic for never voting in favour of these then.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    I am advocating a voters veto as opposed to binding CIR. A political party or an MP who got a ballot drawn should be free vote on moral issues but it would not become law for three months in which time a petition could be launched requiring say 50,000 signatures. If the signatures are collected there is a referendum that would act like a Upper House that New Zealand no longer has.

    There could be a requirement for maybe 60% to veto the legislation. This would be a lot more democratic than the government ignoring the referendum on smacking.

    I may not be happy with the results of some referendums but I would be happy to accept the results. That is how democracy works. You do not get your way all the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. reid (16,454 comments) says:

    Why not call black marriage civil unions and white marriages marriage?

    Why not call interracial marriages civil unions but white marriages marriage?

    Farken d’oh CW, don’t you understand the central point? We are NOT talking about a coupling we are talking about a family. Gay marriage is NOT about couples, it’s about corrupting in people’s mind the equation we have made since we lived in caves that marriage = family.

    So as long as it’s a man and a woman, why does race matter? It doesn’t, in this debate, except in your own mind.

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

    Farken d’oh reid, believe it or not, when we lived in caves families meant a dominant male murdering beta male competitors for the right to procreation and living in polygamy where women and children only ate after the father has had his share.

    So long as it’s man and man, why does gender matter? It doesn’t, in this debate, except in your own mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. reid (16,454 comments) says:

    So long as it’s man and man, why does gender matter? It doesn’t, in this debate, except in your own mind.

    Sigh.

    You haven’t read anything I’ve said above have you CW so pray do so then get back re any of the points I made above.

    If you wish a reply to your specific point I’ve said numerous times above that they already have all the legal rights they just don’t get to call it “marriage” so what precisely are the gays moaning about, why do they care about the label and furthermore “gay” = man-man AND woman-woman couples so let’s just get that clear.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    ….I’ve said numerous times above that they already have all the legal rights they just don’t get to call it “marriage” so what precisely are the gays moaning about, why do they care about the label….

    Maybe precisely for the same reason you seem to care about the label.
    If it’s just a label and not so important, why the resistance to include them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. reid (16,454 comments) says:

    If it’s just a label and not so important, why the resistance to include them?

    Crikey eszett, are you mental? This is evidence from the govt of the UK, that labels matter:

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/10/more_on_marriage.html#comments

    Labels, eszett, DO, repeat DO repeat DO matter. This is precisely why straight people who support strong families and love their children, should NOT repeat NOT repeat NOT allows gays to claim the label. And the way to do that, which I’m surprised you haven’t yet clicked to eszett for its unassailable, is that they already have everything else – all the legal rights going, they have. So why oh why oh why, is the label that important to the gays? Why? And they won’t answer, eszett. They won’t say a word.

    And a wise man would take note, of that. And draw some conclusions.

    A fool on the other hand, would go whistling by, hands in pockets, gaily out for a stroll and see nothing at all wrong with it, if some groups upset, why not placate them. Isn’t that the nice thing to do?

    Which one are you eszett?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    So why oh why oh why, is the label that important to the gays? Why?

    seems to me that you answered your question yourself, reid.

    Labels, eszett, DO, repeat DO repeat DO matter.

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

    reid says:

    This is precisely why straight people who support strong families and love their children, should NOT repeat NOT repeat NOT allows gays to claim the label.

    You’re as retarded as the bigots who claimed that freeing the black slaves would destroy the economy that relied on free labour. Or that allowing women to work would destroy the family. Here’s a graph for your reference:

    http://i.tfster.com/cache/digmybones.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/gay-marriage-pie-chart-jpg.jpg

    And secondly, you claiming they already have the right to marry is as silly as saying a woman already has the right to work under the law if the law states that only men can work, by getting a sex change. Why is it important for gays to marry? Depending on where in the world you live, some legal rights are only granted to married couples – America for example.

    Here’s a nonexhaustive list of benefits in the State of Massachusetts which are only available to married couples…

    As to property:

    1. Joint Massachusetts income tax filing
    2. Tenancy by the entirety (a form of ownership that provides certain protections against creditors and allows for the automatic descent of property to the surviving spouse without probate)
    3. Extension of the benefit of the homestead protection (securing up to $300,000 in equity from creditors) to one’s spouse and children
    4. Automatic rights to inherit the property of a deceased spouse who does not leave a will
    5. The rights of elective share and of dower (which allow surviving spouses certain property rights where the decedent spouse has not made adequate provision for the survivor in a will)
    6. Entitlement to wages owed to a deceased employee
    7. Eligibility to continue certain businesses of a deceased spouse
    8. The right to share the medical policy of one’s spouse
    9. Thirty-nine week continuation of health coverage for the spouse of a person who is laid off or dies
    10. Preferential options under the Commonwealth’s pension system
    11. Preferential benefits in the Commonwealth’s medical program
    12. Access to veterans’ spousal benefits and preferences
    13. Temporary and permanent alimony rights
    14. The right to bring claims for wrongful death and loss of consortium, and for funeral and burial expenses and punitive damages resulting from tort actions

    Other exclusive marital benefits that are not directly tied to property rights include:

    1. The presumptions of legitimacy and parentage of children born to a married couple
    2. Evidentiary rights, such as the prohibition against spouses testifying against one another about their private conversations, applicable in both civil and criminal cases
    3. Qualification for bereavement or medical leave to care for individuals related by blood or marriage
    4. Automatic “family member” preference to make medical decisions for an incompetent or disabled spouse who does not have a contrary health care proxy
    5. The application of predictable rules of child custody, visitation, support, and removal out-of-State when married parents divorce
    6. Priority rights to administer the estate of a deceased spouse who dies without a will, and the requirement that a surviving spouse must consent to the appointment of any other person as administrator
    7. Right to interment in the lot or tomb owned by one’s deceased spouse

    By the way, your vehement hatred for allowing homosexual marriage and claims that it’ll destroy the family makes you sound like this guy:

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

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. reid (16,454 comments) says:

    CW either directly address the points I’ve raised in this thread and use facts and logic to show why and how they’re wrong, or just shut up.

    Either way, don’t try to draw any conclusions as to what I think or feel about gays, since you obviously understand nothing about me, so don’t pretend you do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    If marriage has historically been about couples who have children – then why do we know of the historic concubine (a woman not given the status of wife because she was not a virgin or came without a dowry?). And why do of our times Catholic priests have families via mistresses (necessity) and others via de facto partners (choice).

    Are the terms husband and wife to be reserved for married couple partners or can there be civil union husbands and wives?

    Should couples who do not intend to have children form civil unions and gays and lesbians who intend to father and mother and or adopt children be married couples? There is no difference between step parenting (and this is now common place amongst those of second marriages) and being the other parent of one’s same sex partners children.

    The fact remains the church once controlled marital arrangments for the wider society (and once would not allow the re-marriage of divorced couples) and no longer do – so the extension of the right to marry in civil marriages to one more group is probably due. Recognition of the human right to equality and choice while denying the option of a civil marriage is a form of cultural apartheid – it says separate but equal, but means less than equal.

    It’s like saying the Catholic Church is the one true church, through which salvation comes, while claiming the Pope is head of all Christendom including those in other Christian churches – claiming to be seeking the an multi-faith discourse and brotherhood with Jews and Moslems but refusing to pray with non Christians because they were not of the one true faith.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Courage Wolf

    The marriage of Jacob to his wife’s sister was a marriage later banned in the “Torah Law received by Moses from God”. Apparently the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had no problem with either polygamy or marrying a wifes younger sister. But the God of Moses had a different opinion on the latter.

    But as they say, after man claimed to grow in knowledge of God they wrote more and more laws to judge other men by – well until they learnt that not all these new precepts of men were a good thing. Building a nation of respect after the era of Hammurabi of the great law code of Babylon (he loved death sentences to use fear of death to inspire righteousness) apparently required a prophet receiving a law from a God.

    A marriage between Tamar and the brothers of Er – Onan and Shelah – would also have been a banned one under the later Torah Law. Though the insemination of a childless widow by her brother in law was not. She would have remained in the family into which she had married, being provided for by her father in this house, and he would regard her children as children of his house (soft reprise of the Lot story). There are other meanings, but this part of that story covers many other similar situations where either step daughters or daughter in laws are provided for.

    The marriage of the son of David’s wife (Amnon) and the daughter of David’s wife (Tamar) was one banned in the Torah Law and so if it never occured. This story is supposed to echo the earlier story where Tamar would not marry her brothers in law Er or Shelah but would have her children provided for by the father of the house. Meaning that Tamar’s children were to be raised up by the father of her house, her mothers husband King David.

    The secret version of this story is where the seed of the King’s deceased first born son was used to birth Tamar and she was the heiress of this line of Perez.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. reid (16,454 comments) says:

    Okay SPC, please read what I said last week on the Deborah thread for answers to everything you raised there. It was last Saturday I think. Can’t be bothered saying it all again.

    Bit disappointing some people keep raising the same issues as you have SPC, as if they have any relevance at all to the insistence by gays that they are entitled to the label. Don’t people like you understand anything about this issue, at all?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Correction

    This story is supposed to echo the earlier story where Tamar would not marry her brothers in law – Onan or Shelah – but would have her children provided for by the father of the house. Meaning that Tamar’s children were to be raised up by the father of her house, her mothers husband King David.

    The secret version of this story is where the seed of the King’s deceased first born son was used by one wife to birth Tamar and she was the heiress of this line of Perez.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Yeah sure reid I am well aware that this is an issue where supremacists roam and declare cultural authority to their norms, no need to remind me

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    It’s not that common for people to associate marriage with sex and procreation these days reid. That is why the old cultural norm has broken down.

    Do married couples have more children then de facto couples? Do they delay having sex until marriage and then have it for the purposes of procreation? No and no.

    Even Catholics ignore the direction of the church to seize their dominion over the earth and all the opportunities it offers (including knowledge of fertilty management).

    There is no longer evidence that heterosexual couples are more likely to raise up children than same sex couples – it’s one child per family in China and much of Europe. And since the science is now developing to the point where same sex couples will soon be able to share the birth DNA of children (gene merging) – in part because of the market demand from aging heterosexuals for fertility treatment help (because they delay children until they reach 40 as they only want one or possibly two children).

    Many marriages today involve older couples in second marriages (they often do not result in children).

    Denying the term marriage for partnerships of same sex couples in this environment is to preserve some old norm that once appeared to exist. That old world order of man as a subject of the biological imperative (the natural urge to mate resulting in procreation) has broken down, to be replaced by a humanity subject by the finite nature of the habitat that sustains human life. Humanity is no longer wedded to marriage laws of the past to manage human urges, but to the effort to find a means to restrain our despoiling of the planet and its resources to ensure a survival (not just of the fittest) of our civilisation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. reid (16,454 comments) says:

    Yeah sure reid I am well aware that this is an issue where supremacists roam and declare cultural authority to their norms, no need to remind me

    Why SPC, you simply dig yourself deeper, with your profound misunderstanding of what this issue is really all about, with your every comment.

    It’s quite funny really. I’m quite enjoying it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    You only say you enjoy a debate when you no longer take part in it, a bit like the politician says he is glad someone asked that question when he does not want to answer it.

    You had nothing of substantive relevance to offer on the Deborah Russel thread last week either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. reid (16,454 comments) says:

    Get specific then SPC if you’re prepared to back that up. I’ve been quite detailed in my thinking on both these threads. Where and most importantly how, specifically, have I erred in anything I’ve said on either of these?

    Seriously.

    Tell me where my predicates are wrong. Tell me where, it’s not like that. This is not why they are doing this. Tell me why, the majick question which no-one has yet addressed, the gays and the feminists want the label, when they already have everything else? No-one has yet even attempted to start tackling that question on either thread, SPC. Not even DPF. Why don’t you be the first to?

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

    Hey look, I can debate like you too reid – either address the points I’ve made in this thread or shut the fuck up because you don’t know what you’re talking about period. Now reply to this you or are you a pussy you loser. The world will be a better place once dumb old conservative people like you have died out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. reid (16,454 comments) says:

    either address the points I’ve made in this thread or shut the fuck up

    Newsflash SPC I already have in multiple posts both above and last week.

    What about that, don’t you understand?

    Whose the loser now, SPC?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. wat dabney (3,756 comments) says:

    This is precisely why straight people who support strong families and love their children, should NOT repeat NOT repeat NOT allows gays to claim the label.

    It’s always the case that whenever individual rights are being trashed it’s done “for the good of society.” The state must censor what you say and what you can see, for the good of society. The state must forcibly take your earnings and give it to others, for the good of society. Jews must not be allowed to marry gentiles, for the good of society. The state’s marital laws must discriminate against homosexuals, for the good of society.

    reid, you sound just like an angry bigot explaining Nazi race laws.

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

    Newsflash reid, so have I in multiple posts above and last week. What about that, don’t you understand? Dumbass. See, I can debate like you too and expect you to understand what the fuck I’m talking about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Johnboy (16,554 comments) says:

    Thank God the woman I married 41 years ago wasn’t a Gay, football team, goldfish loving, five year old, who suggested her father should not be giving her away but joining the menage we were about to confirm before God.

    It was bad enough that the Priest had the hots for her sister without the added complication of all the other stuff! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Johnboy (16,554 comments) says:

    Yes Lucia. He was one of your lot! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. reid (16,454 comments) says:

    OK so answer the question then, CW. Der. Why precisely do gays want the label, when they already have everything else? Point me to where, specifically, you have already answered that, CW.

    Apologies in advance for not noticing despite having previously thought I’d read every post on both threads.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Griff (7,700 comments) says:

    Marriage is a contract between two people it has repercussions in law
    Marriage is not nor ever been exclusively about procreation. That any adult couple who wish to enter into this contract should be allowed. To this there is no rational argument As to those put forward by bigots control freaks and the religious. As we live in a secular state religions arguments has no validity. Bigotry has no part in law ether. That just leaves control freaks who should just be shot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Johnboy (16,554 comments) says:

    What logic Griff.

    I’ll shoot the wife straight away.

    What calibre would you suggest is the most humane? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Griff (7,700 comments) says:

    .50 best to be sure

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Johnboy (16,554 comments) says:

    Only pulling your tit Griff. I always use 7mm Rem Mag. Kills the bitch out to 500 metres. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. reid (16,454 comments) says:

    Marriage is not nor ever been exclusively about procreation.

    Actually Griff the entire history of the whole world since we lived in caves gives the lie to your proposition.

    The only time people have alleged in the entire history of the world since we lived in caves, that marriage does not equal children which equals family, is in the last few decades.

    Why don’t you google “world history since we lived in caves,” if you doubt this?

    Sarcasm and condescension aside, what I say is true, isn’t it, Griff. This is what the facts are.

    That being the case Griff, where precisely is the anomalous assertion arising from? From my argument, or from yours?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Griff (7,700 comments) says:

    Pre about four thousand years ago you are purely speculating. since recorded history many have married and had no offspring so marriage is not limited to procreation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. reid (16,454 comments) says:

    OK Griff, then let’s call it for my side, about the last four thousand years and for your side, about the last forty.

    Is that about right?

    BTW, this is about the concept in peoples minds over history, as a concept. Whether or not various couples have or have not had children, is not and never has been, the point. Which you’d know very well, if you’d read my posts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. wat dabney (3,756 comments) says:

    reid,

    Marriage is not nor ever been exclusively about procreation.’

    “Actually Griff the entire history of the whole world since we lived in caves gives the lie to your proposition.

    Did it ever occur to you that it’s none of your damn business why other people choose to get married? Or do you fancy yourself with a uniform, peaked cap and clipboard, prying into other people’s lives?

    Perhaps you’d better send us all a questionnaire and you can let us know if our own marriages are valid or not?

    Does your wife know you only married her to procreate?

    Other people marry for love. You seem to have a problem with that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Johnboy (16,554 comments) says:

    Shit Wat. I married because I loved procreating.

    The fucking’s not too bad either! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. reid (16,454 comments) says:

    reid, you sound just like an angry bigot explaining Nazi race laws.

    wat I’ve already addressed this above FFS, as I keep saying.

    This is not about discwimination, since the gays aren’t being discwiminated against, since they have all the wights we have, they just don’t have the label.

    The UK example I gave on my first post on the Deborah thread explains all of that, and frankly I’m getting sick of pointing every single one who objects, to my previous comments which have already covered them off.

    I think from now on, I’ll reply only if what I’ve already said on the gay marriage label issue hasn’t previously been explained. So pray forgive any future silence accordingly.

    do you fancy yourself with a uniform, peaked cap and clipboard, prying into other people’s lives?

    Yes wat, I do.

    I even have a special uniform I sometimes wear, in private.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Griff (7,700 comments) says:

    “since recorded history many have married and had no offspring so marriage is not limited to procreation.”

    As I said

    This anomaly disproves you belief that marriage is solely based on procreation

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Johnboy (16,554 comments) says:

    Their winding you up reid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. reid (16,454 comments) says:

    I am a serene ball of warm fluffy goodness bobbing about on a turbid ocean, Johnboy, and all is well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Griff (7,700 comments) says:

    Now is your chance JB reid is pretending to be a ball of fluffy goodness. back legs into gumboots and there is your ewe.

    “marriage made in heaven”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Johnboy (16,554 comments) says:

    Bugger Griff. Missed the moment. Been making the potato salad for dinner.

    Keep your pecker up reid. Love the fluffy goodness vision. Turbid turgidness always does it for me. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. wat dabney (3,756 comments) says:

    I’ve already addressed this above FFS, as I keep saying…

    You may have addressed it but you haven’t refuted it, because the facts are against you. So the objections are as pertinent as ever, it’s just that you try to ignore them.

    Your “separate but equal” argument is as worthless in this case as it was when wielded in support of Jim Crow laws. The existence of state discrimination is as objectionable when applied on grounds of sexuality as it is on race. There is no moral difference.

    This is not about discwimination, since the gays aren’t being discwiminated against, since they have all the wights we have, they just don’t have the label.

    If the law were reversed such that homosexual marriages were allowed and heterosexuals ones banned you’d be quite okay with that because, you know, your rights would be unaffected?

    Didn’t think so.

    So enough with the dissembling please. We all know that your position is sheer bigotry stemming entirely from your ugly religious convictions. Just as Christians justified slavery because it is sanctioned in the Bible, so you justify discrimination against homosexuals.

    Fortunately people like you are a dying breed and your despicable superstitions are dying out with you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Johnboy (16,554 comments) says:

    G-d I feel so far behind the times.

    I think I shall tell the missus to fuck off and see if I can find a handsome looking young stud to accompany me on my future life’s adventure. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. wat dabney (3,756 comments) says:

    chase me…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. reid (16,454 comments) says:

    Fucking d’oh wat you utter and complete mental in every way.

    For you have clearly not understood a single thing I’ve said about that gay marriage issue. Fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking and finally, fuck fuckity FFS fuckity, d’oh.

    For what about the following wat, don’t you understand?

    THEY ALREADY HAVE ALL THE FUCKING RIGHTS UNDER THE SUN IN EVERY WAY POSSIBLE.

    So why oh why are they discwiminated against in any way, if they just don’t get to share the label? I mean, it’s only a label. Why do they have to have it?

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

    So why oh why are they discwiminated against in any way, if they just don’t get to share the label? I mean, it’s only a label. Why do they have to have it?

    I think when there’s unequal treatment under the law, the question should never be “Why do they have to have equality?” but rather, “Why shouldn’t they have equality?”

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