Adoption law reform
May 28th, 2012 at 1:00 pm by David FarrarAudrey Young in the NZ Herald reports:
Two MPs from opposing parties, National’s Nikki Kaye and the Greens’ Kevin Hague, have joined forces to develop a bill that would legalise adoption by gay couples.
The National Party’s northern regional conference in Auckland at the weekend passed a remit in closed session supporting adoption by couples in a civil union.
I blogged this over the weekend. A very welcome move, and also good to see MPs working across party lines on an issue that impacts a lot of New Zealanders – I don’t mean just same sex adoption, but updating the adoption and surrogacy laws generally. They are woefully out of date.
Prime Minister John Key told the Herald yesterday the passage of the remit reflected the changing face of the National Party.
“The party is modernising. You can see by the number of young people. It’s ethnically a lot more diverse than in was. It’s more representative of modern day New Zealand. It’s a very positive and healthy thing.”
For many years the majority of delegates at conferences were old and white. This has changed, especially in Auckland. I recall being a Young National myself and TVNZ asking me up until what age you are considered a Young National, and replying “Oh, around 60″ 
Ms Kaye, the MP for Auckland Central, said she had worked for 18 months on the issue with Mr Hague, a West Coast gay MP.
She said many couples had fertility issues and more were considering surrogacy.
It made sense to consider adoption and surrogacy together, as they reflected the more modern arrangements New Zealanders were choosing to structure their families.
When the MPs started at looking at the Adoption Act 1955, they decided it would be best to approach it from a perspective in which the welfare of the child was paramount.
This is the sensible focus. Legislative prohibitions against certain types of relationships may result in outcomes where the child’s welfare is not paramount. It is far better for the totality of the circumstances of a prospective parent or parents is taken into account.
The two MPs are drafting legislation to amend the Care of Children Bill 2004 based on a previous Law Commission report that looked at guardianship and adoption.
The measure should be ready in a few months, Ms Kaye said, and would be a private member’s bill in her name or Mr Hague’s.
It was a complex piece of work and there would be about 40 policy decisions. Some would be controversial, including the age of adoption, adoption by same-sex couples, adoption by single people, Maori adoption practices and issues relating to surrogacy.
It is a hugely complex area, especially as what actually happens today is so far removed from the old law which was all about “closed” adoptions where a birth parent gives their child up to the state who gives it to adoptive parents. Such adoptions are almost extinct in New Zealand. The majority of adoptions involve arrangements between birth and adoptive parents directly, or through surrogacy.
May 28th, 2012 at 1:05 pm
“When the MPs started at looking at the Adoption Act 1955, they decided it would be best to approach it from a perspective in which the welfare of the child was paramount.
This is the sensible focus.”
The ONLY reason this is an issue is because the Gay lobby wants it. Not because of concern about children.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 1:06 pm
What happened to children’s rights? Don’t they deserve a mum and a dad? But gays trump kids.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 1:07 pm
EWS,
Yep. I think they see children as accessories a lot of the time, like an iphone or a purse.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Are Nikki Kaye, Jacinda Ardern and Kevin Hague really concerned about adoption outcomes for New Zealand children?
Or, are the all proponents of Gay marriage?
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 1:11 pm
And so the delusions begin. The Adoption Act is overdue for review. One of those reasons would be a sensible move to allow adoption by anyone, irrespective of relationship status, who can care for a child.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 1:24 pm
I said it before and I’ll say it again, NZ has bigger fish to fry then legalize accesorising of human babbies for the Grey Lynn “mom” and “dads”.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 1:28 pm
I saw Alison Mau on Good Morning today, pushing some Rainbow Youth campaign that’s going on at the moment (involving the F word in their video). Something to do with suicide rates among young people, and ‘homophobia” being the cause…. Get real…
Suicide rates are just as high in the Netherlands and San Francisco, where same-sex marriage has been legalised the longest.
People criticize Christians for pushing their faith down the throats of others: that’s not what I’m seeing – I’m seeing the gays pushing their agenda everywhere, whether it be via parades, on TV sitcoms, movies, in your face campaigns like this one.
Vote:It’s not Christians who are proselytizing. It is gays.
May 28th, 2012 at 1:29 pm
Are Nikki Kaye, Jacinda Ardern and Kevin Hague really concerned about adoption outcomes for New Zealand children?
Ardern is one of the ones appearing in the WTF campaign video being pushed by gays in NZ at the moment. And yes, they actually say F*CK.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Notice it is two old maid spinsters who have had absolutely nothing to do with child raising that are pushing this perversity
[DPF: I dodn't think Kevin Hague is a spinster, and off memory he has one child.
Also as a spinster is generally defined as a childless woman who have never been married and has reached menopause, I doubt that applies to Nikki or Jacinda. I haven't asked either of them, but I doubt they have reached menopause at the age of 32.]
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 1:59 pm
I doubt Jacinda Ardern would have time to feed a child. She’s too busy feeding press releases to loved up flaky men who work for the NZ Herald as ‘Social Issues’ reporters.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
Phew…its wall to wall bigots and phobes in here…..
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 2:09 pm
The sick joke is that such legislation will probably be decided by a conscience vote.
I would like to seem some evidence that the average MP has a better conscience than the average voter.
What we need is a voter’s veto for conscience votes. You can bet the vast majority of MPs would oppose such move but would not be able to give a credible reason.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 2:11 pm
@The Scorned
Care to expand on how voiceing an oppinion as a voter makes people biggots?
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 2:12 pm
Well if a ‘voter’s veto’ was allowed for this, it would lose. The Stuff poll has 64% support for same-sex adoption.
Face it, you guys are losing.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 2:14 pm
Fletch,
People criticize Christians for pushing their faith down the throats of others: that’s not what I’m seeing – I’m seeing the gays pushing their agenda everywhere, whether it be via parades, on TV sitcoms, movies, in your face campaigns like this one.
It’s not Christians who are proselytizing. It is gays.
You ever watch television on a Sunday morning? Brian Houston? Charles Stanley? Music and the spoken word? Christ Embassy Africa? Christ Embassy Australia? Hour of power? Impact for Life? No proselytizing going on there.
Of course there’s nothing wrong with that. What’s wrong is when you want to write legislation according to your superstition.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 2:14 pm
I’m pretty sure gay marriage and adoption reform are inevitable. These changes will soon seem as uncontroversial as the 1980s homosexual law reform seems now.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 2:14 pm
Dime is pretty gay friendly. Do what ya want type thing.
I struggle with this one though.
You can bring out all the intellectual arguments in the world but it doesnt change this simple fact. More than once when the kid goes to school someone is gonna say
“mate, youre the son of two fags.” “your dad blows other guys” etc etc dont get me wrong, saying such a thing in 10 years time will probably get you prison, but its gonna happen.
it will become a defining thing about the kid who “has two dads”. for some kids it wont matter, but for some kids it will be a freakin nightmare
also – the kids will most probably grow up to be useless lefties who work in the public sector
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 2:20 pm
berend (1,050) Says:
May 28th, 2012 at 1:06 pm
What happened to children’s rights? Don’t they deserve a mum and a dad? But gays trump kids.
The fact that they are up for adoption would suggest they don’t have a mum and a dad. Duh.
But seriously… would you apply the same logic to solo mums? Dads who go off to war? Parents who get divorced? Or do kids “rights” only matter because you hate fags?
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 2:21 pm
the kids will most probably grow up to be useless lefties who work in the public sector
Now I know why they are pushing this Law so hard. It’s part of Labour’s comeback strategy. So clever, so feindishly clever, I feel the cold reptilian claws of Komrade Klarkski all over this.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 2:21 pm
dime,
“mate, youre the son of two fags.” “your dad blows other guys” etc etc dont get me wrong, saying such a thing in 10 years time will probably get you prison, but its gonna happen.
They also say “your mother’s fat”, “Your house is crappy”, “Your clothes aren’t cool”, “You’re ugly” etc. etc. etc.
It’s called LIFE.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 2:21 pm
Seeing there are already many kids being raised by ‘two dads’ or ‘two mums, or trios of varing descriptions, how would changing the legal formalities of those relationships affect what happens to those kids at school? Not a valid reason for retaiing the status quo.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
@Weihana
It’s pretty much impossible to adopt a kid if you are a single male. Funnily enough if you partake of the meat truncheon or furry cup and happen to live with you same sex partner you are automaticaly trump straight men. Hmmmm….
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
dime, if that is going to happen, it will happen to children raised by gay parents irrespective of whether or not they have been legally adopted by them as a couple (I.e. it will be happening today under current living/parenting arrangements.). Allowing gay adoption will have absolutely zero impact on that sort of teasing
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 2:29 pm
“Well if a ‘voter’s veto’ was allowed for this, it would lose. The Stuff poll has 64% support for same-sex adoption.”
A non random poll is hardly representative.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 2:30 pm
We should stop calling issues like this ‘conscience issues’, for a start. The vote should reflect the electorate’s view presented to their representative MP. John Key is constantly chastised for voting against civil unions, despite personally not being opposed to them. I happen to think he did the bigger thing by not trying to second guess or belittle his electorate, who told him no, we don’t want civil unions (for the record I’ve no opposition to civil unions/marriage between any consenting adults/budgies/houseplants, and I’ve never voted National).
Of course, MMP gave us those lovely list MPs who remain unaccountable to any electorate’s views; oh, and quell surprise, rejected electorate candidates like Jacinda and Hague are pushing this beltway/aging Grey Lynn hipster non-issue. Can’t have kids? Try the SPCA.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 2:33 pm
Plain run of the mill hetero parents are not able to adopt now.
Vote:It’s just about impossible.
Many kids who would really benefit from a confirmed future and place in the world are instead left in some sort or ‘foster’ status because the rights of the birth parents, who are often completely hopeless, are regarded, while the rights of the kids are not.
There has been war on adoption from the system. It’s not only gays that miss out.
Any would be adoptive parent, and the few who achieve adoption, are the least recognised in the system.
May 28th, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Ironically, it’s likely that the staunchest defenders of the welfare state, are also those who want to changes to adoption laws. The welfare state has pretty much dried up all adoption opportunities.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 2:38 pm
“Can’t have kids? Try the SPCA.” Or maybe they could ask Johnboy about adopting a lamb.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 2:41 pm
“We should stop calling issues like this ‘conscience issues’, for a start. The vote should reflect the electorate’s view presented to their representative MP.”
What about the list MPs and those who are in a safe seat with a list backup?
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Yeah dubya, nasty welfare state making it too easy for poor people to hang on to their kids instead of giving them up for adoption to nicer folks.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Gay couple adoption should be permitted if provision is written into the law to allow an adopted child in later life to sue the gay parents for damages if the child grows to consider their upbringing was an unnatural environment due to the couple being same sex, or if any mental illness can be logically shown to relate to the parentage situation.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 2:46 pm
@Yvette
That is discrimination, children should be able to sue straight prents too.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 2:47 pm
bhudsen – wont gay adoption mean they can adopt kids from wherever it is you adopt kids?
thats not happening now. all thats happening now is they are living with one of their parents and his/hers new partner.
or am i wrong!?
what about trannys? can they adopt too?
weihana – “your dad blows dudes” is somewhat worse than “your mum is fat”.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 2:55 pm
I suspect demand for Catholic schools will increase if gay marriage goes through. At least until the Gay/PC Police start having a crack at them. As much as Alison Mau and Nikki Kaye want us to believe this is normal, people don’t think this is normal.
Frankly, when my kids, for example, do dancing at school. I don’t want them to be put in a position where they a) have to akwardly choose between dancing with the same sex or not, or worse b) being made to dance with the same sex by some do-gooder teaching.
No thanks.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 3:00 pm
If as I beleive they were talking about, its basically tearing up the adoption act and starting again, and making the law work for kids then what’s the problem? So what if a kid as two mummies, or two daddies, a lot them would be better than some of the drop kick parents we have today!
Remember the church doesn’t matter anymore, and religion is nothing more than fantasy make bellieve. If you beleive in it then fine, good on you if it helps you through life, but it doesn’t matter to me, so why should I take any notice of it? Things change, and adjust, we need more great parents in NZ, not lots of crap ones, if it makes a few gays feel better, and the kid is loved who cares.
There’s lots in the Act that’s outdated, for instance in my case, my partner can’t adopt my son, as he’s less than 21 years older than her, which in this day and age is a little stupid, she cares for him, as if he was her own, and makes sure he has what he needs, yet she can’t legally adopt him. It doesn’t bother us too much, but we don’t see the point in it. But it could have serious consequences, as if for example, something was to happen to me and him, and he required medical treatment, she couldn’t legally give it, as she’s not a legal guardian, meaning she’d have to track down my son’s mum to get her permission for the treatment. How stupid is that! Likewise if we decide to fly internationally with him, it could be difficult if something happens to me, due to lack of legal gaurdianship.
Also I know of situations in the Maori and Pacific Island community, where adoption hasn’t been able to be done legally but has happened, meaning some people down the track don’t know their real family, or what has happened. Surely allowing better doccumentation, is better for all kids, regardless of who wants to adopt?
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 3:01 pm
“mikenmild:
Yeah dubya, nasty welfare state making it too easy for poor people to hang on to their kids instead of giving them up for adoption to nicer folks.”
You say it sarcastically, I say it with unapologetic conviction! Probably is best I don’t venture too far into the Hutt Valley, huh
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 3:03 pm
I would imagine that is the most common scenario dime, but there are also cases of surrogacy/artificial insemination for gay parents. The point is not how the children come to be living in a same-sex parenting situation, but that, to the extent that those children will be teased by their peers, the teasing will occur irrespective of whether or not their same-sex parents have legally adopted them as a couple.
Also pays to bear in mind that a gay individual is able to adopt a child as an individual. Currently they cannot as a same-sex couple. If society legitimizes the former (and clearly it does – there are no protests, referenda to remove that) then not allowing a same-sex couple to adopt defies logic.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 3:06 pm
What also interested me was the admission that 40 policy decisions have to be made on this complex piece of legislation. The more we go into gay adoption and gay marriage the more complex things will be and the more far reaching changes will be made. I see in Great Britain the proponents of gay marriage are now looking to change the law about marriage and the need to consummate the marriage. That will have to be waived because of course gays cannot consummate the marriage in the traditional sense.
So all of these changes will have huge effect on future family structure and our understanding of marriage. I believe this is a radical piece of social engineering. I wonder whether this is supported by the New Zealand electorate? In particular does the average national party voter really want gay marriage and gay adoption?
As I have said before I was really annoyed that John Key was not prepared to invest any political capital at all in the overturning of the anti-smacking legislation. Now the anti-smacking legislation was opposed by 85% of the electorate, many of whom would be National party voters.
But here he is championing gay marriage and gay adoption. I do hope that he sees a huge downturn in the polls. Maybe that will help him see sense. This is not something that the vast majority of his party stands for and would welcome in my opinion. He should leave this type of social engineering to his Parliamentary colleagues on the far left of the political spectrum.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 3:07 pm
This is not reform, it’s madness.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 3:08 pm
@ rolla_fxgt
You outline a couple of good reasons why the law should be looked at for a potential review. HOWEVER, let’s not confuse the scenarios you point out, with what the Gay Lobby is doing – using adoption as a sneaky way of getting gay marriage. They are more concerned about what they want, rather than protecting children.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 3:11 pm
There aren’t any kids to adopt! They’re either aborted or fostered out.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 3:13 pm
“That will have to be waived because of course gays cannot consummate the marriage in the traditional sense.”
I am sure that can be changed with another law change to say if you stick you dick up any orifice you marriage is consummated.
Maybe someone should suggest this to the authors of the proposed bill.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 3:18 pm
“I am sure that can be changed with another law change to say if you stick you dick up any orifice you marriage is consummated.”
That may upset the lesbians, Chuck.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 3:23 pm
I’m pretty sure consummation is not a legal requirement for a marriage to be valid in NZ.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 3:29 pm
“Suicide rates are just as high in the Netherlands and San Francisco, where same-sex marriage has been legalised the longest.”
15.3% in NZ, 4.6% in the Netherlands, 8% in the USA.
But hey, thanks for playing.
Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1414751/table/T1/
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 3:36 pm
dime (4,429) Says:
May 28th, 2012 at 2:47 pm
weihana – “your dad blows dudes” is somewhat worse than “your mum is fat”.
Why is it worse? Personally I wouldn’t find either as bad as bullying over personal appearance which can be intense and prolonged and much worse than any teasing over one’s parents as it directly relates to that individual.
But these are the challenges of life. If a Muslim mother drops of her son to school in full burqa then there is a high likelihood that child is going to be the subject of teasing from other kids not accustomed to that cultural background. But we do not endorse such bullying by discriminating against the mother, we address the problem at its roots (i.e. the bullying).
Trying to say one form of bullying is better or worse than any other really is a fruitless effort. We can all make arguments about what is worse, but at the end of the day the smallest and silliest of things can be a cause of bullying and it can be extremely hurtful to the child who is victimized in this way. But the answer is to tackle the bullying, not to treat it as a legitimate part of life that we should cater for by discriminating against things which may or may not invoke the wrath of the schoolyard bully.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
EWS,
Frankly, when my kids, for example, do dancing at school. I don’t want them to be put in a position where they a) have to akwardly choose between dancing with the same sex or not, or worse b) being made to dance with the same sex by some do-gooder teaching.
No thanks.
Wow… what a concerned parent.. tackling the BIG issues. lol.
Personally I found dancing with the opposite sex was the awkward part at school. If your son finds it awkward dancing with another boy well maybe he’s a bit queer like his old man and is secretly attracted to his “friend”. Then again, wtf is he doing taking dance lessons? That’s just a little bit too obvious.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 4:12 pm
This law change will result in only an infinitesimal increase in the number of children who actually get raised by a same-sex couples because there are Fuck All “stranger” adoptions in New Zealand (less than 100 a year). And then a given same-sex couple only will be able to adopt a child if the birth mother chose them ahead of all other eligible couples. So if gay couples could join the pool of people eligible to adopt in this manner, the number of children who would be placed with them likely would be negligible
What this means is that the argument about whether kids being raised by same-sex couples is good/bad is pretty much irrelevant to this issue, because it ISN’T ABOUT MORE KIDS BEING RAISED BY SAME SEX COUPLES THAN THERE ARE AT THE MOMENT.
The issue IS about putting an end to legal absurdities like this: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2809327/Child-in-legal-black-hole
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 4:22 pm
AG,
Actually I think it would be used more in cases where a same-sex couple have a child with one of the couple as a biological parent – e.g. surrogacy for gay couple using the semen from one, or artificial insemination of one partner in a lesbian relationship. These cases happen today, but I understand that only the biological parent in the same-sex couple can be legally recognized as the parent. Gay adoption would allow the couple to adopt their child in these instances
EDIT: Sorry, I see that the link you posted is very much to that point
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 4:38 pm
I’d be interested in anyone from the anti community explaining why the adoption sought in the article linked by AG should not happen.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 4:43 pm
I watched the WTF video and was suprised to learn that homosexual suicide rates at 4x the average are in fact the fault of us straighties, they’re not offing themselves because they’re gay, of course, but aparrently because gays are “teased”, “lonely” and “getting beaten up” all over the shot and it’s all our fault. (I’m white, married, male, straight and in NZ so everything’s my fault!)
I call rubbish, show me one straight high school kid who didn’t get mercilessly teased, didn’t feel lonely from time to time or get the crap beaten out of them – I sure did. But if the ponsonby glitteratti tell me so, it must be true, right?
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Scott
It is not just the UK either.
I’ve said before that it is about the brand and dilution on the one hand and on the other about getting their hands on our most prescious resource/asset.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/gay_marriage_the_hidden_agenda.html
http://www.childtrends.org/Files/Child_Trends_2002_04_17_FS_Marriage.pdf
Vote:http://www.childtrends.org/Files/FamilyEnvironmentRB.pdf
May 28th, 2012 at 5:24 pm
Jeremy
Vote:Whilst what you say is no excuse, you fail to mention the gingers DPF loves to take the piss out of
May 28th, 2012 at 5:32 pm
So gay rights will hijack adoption law reform and look out those who have a contrary view because you will only oppose such inciteful progress if you are bigoted or homophobic. Don’t worry too much about the kids as their interests are not really the issue of this debate.
If you think that the interests of children are better served by gay parents then you have a far different view of the world than I do. Adopted kids have enough to deal with without having to justify the lifestyle choice of their adoptive parents. Kids do not tread warily around the sensitivities of political correctness in their playground banter. They are often blunt and sometimes cruel but we can school our kids to deal with justifying how their parents choose to live. Teenage gays still struggle to deal with their sexuality which is sad but this act would have much younger children deal with their parents sexuality and yet John Key thinks that it is a modern attitude and represents progress.
In reality It represents only the interests of gay couples and does not reflect the interests of children and I am very strongly opposed to such a change.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 5:51 pm
I wouldn’t have minded being adopted by lesbians, maybe when I was about 14 or so.
Lipstick lesbians mind you, not bulldykes.
I probably would have been in the bedroom next to them, able to hear every groan and whimper as they met in a frenzy of darting tongues each night. Because those walls are paper-thin you know.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 5:52 pm
Just heard WhaleOil on the radio state that it’s only those over 60 who oppose gay couples adopting children.
So, hands up all you under 60 year old opposers, how many are there?
I’m one, I’m in my early 40′s.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 5:59 pm
yeah but you’re a bigot Lucia so who gives a shit what you oppose. As much as i am perfectly happy for people to worship whatever sky pixie they want, its disgusting that your beliefs are trying to be used to stop others who want to, raising children. so before you whine about intolerance towards religion, look to your own intolerance and bigotry.
notice in that article linked to, they only mention that Green MP Hague is putting together a bill. No mention that its National Electorate MP Nikki Kaye and List MP Hague doing it. fucking media, no opportunity wasted pushing the greens above anyone else. thats my only worry with this bill, it will somehow, no matter what happens, be put forward as a green initiative and victory by the media.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Lucia,
Ideally all orphans would be given to Catholic priests to raise, so we could be sure they’d be looked after properly. But there simply aren’t enough, so we must accept the help of gay people.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 6:09 pm
No Grendal Lucia isn’t a bigot – calling someone a bigot because they don’t go along with an an agenda is an empty headed debating technique.
Lucia is a mother putting her money and energy into her children – walking the walk instead of talking the talk as they say.
On the other hand Jacinda Arden and Nikki Kaye are airheads who a talking the talk but not walking the walk – being childless they have no stake in the future, unlike people like Lucia so if the result of their efforts is a degraded and impoverished society what is it to them.
They are quite content to squander the future to satiate their temporal whims
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 6:11 pm
Wat,
Last I heard, there was a massive shortage of children available to be adopted. I suppose if we stopped killing 18,000 per year in our hospitals, there might be a few more.
Obviously not an opposer. Though, I think you would benefit from my anti-porn drive.
Grendel,
I know you’re hurting, so I forgive you.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 6:12 pm
Grendel rather than debate Mark who raises some very good points you resort to the usual bigot defined by most liberal as someone who disagrees with them.
BTW – If you are a liberal female which you sound like how would you feel if you male partner was a closer bi?
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 6:13 pm
Don’t forget Andrei, that not agreeing with full throated support (that is a bad pun) with the homosexual agenda makes you a bigot. Like saying Maori make up 15% of the population but 50% of the prison population makes you a racist.
Just common sense really….
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 6:20 pm
No Chuck, Lucia, Mark and you are bigots becuase you have intolerance towards others who have done nothing to you. You are bigots becuase you irrationally hate others and wish to deprive them becuase of your views, you are bigots becuause you wish to hide your bigotry behind what you claim some sky pixie beleives.
I dont need your forgiveness in the slightest Lucia, how about instead you preach less hate? Chuck, your nervousness around the questions you have about your own sexuality are your issue. I appreciate that for you, other peoples sexual identity and practices are really important, but its not a big deal to the rest of us. but then we dont spend much time trying to ban what others do, while secretly wanting to do it. let it go Chuck, embrace your inner gay voice that just wants to get out, you are clearly pining for the cock with all your obsession with homosexuality.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 6:24 pm
“Just heard WhaleOil on the radio state that it’s only those over 60 who oppose gay couples adopting children.
So, hands up all you under 60 year old opposers, how many are there?
I’m one, I’m in my early 40′s.”
I’m a 19-year-old woman and I oppose it. The purpose of adoption is to provide a child with a family, not to provide adults with children.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 6:31 pm
Grendel, what a load of bull.
Lucia, myself, and the others DO NOT HATE GAYS. I work with a couple of gay guys and we get along well.
However, I do not agree with all of their conduct. And just because I disagree does not mean I hate them.
Where do you get that from I wonder?
It’s just a liberal shouting down tactic.
You don’t have to hate or fear someone to disagree with them. I disagree with people smoking; that does not mean I hate them.
I am sure that vegetarians think it wrong and immoral of me to eat meat, yet I am also sure they do not hate me for doing it.
Again, it’s a tactic of the left to label people as “racist” and “bigoted”.
Vote:You’ve gotten away with doing so for far too long, and I’m not putting up with it anymore.
May 28th, 2012 at 6:33 pm
Lucia:I’m one, I’m in my early 40′s.
IQ or age?
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 6:36 pm
I’m a regular reader but rare commenter, who is more than willing to consider the views of those whose worldview differs from mine. However I must say that Grendel’s comment @5.59 and wat dabney’s @6.00 add absolutely nothing to the debate. As far as I can see, Lucia’s question @5.52 had no religious content, catholic or otherwise. Nor could I detect any bigotry. Regrettably I can’t participate in her poll as I’m in Whaleoil’s 60+ demographic, but despite my great age I’m still learning, every day in fact.
BTW, I’ve been puzzled at the frequent use of the words “bigot” and “bigotry” by a small number of commenters, as often it doesn’t seem to fit the context. Maybe the definition I had learned all those years ago has changed over time, so I checked the dictionary definition which is essentially “intolerance of the views or opinions of others”. So I wasn’t wrong after all! Pot meet kettle.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 6:41 pm
Grendel,
Many years ago, I spent an entire night convincing a gay friend of mine that his life was worth living, that it would matter to me if he died, and that he had to live because life was worth living.
And a few years ago, I visited another person in a psych ward for 6 months every week, who may have had same-sex attraction (he gave a couple of clues, but he wasn’t explicit).
I see everyone with same-sex attraction as human beings first. I do argue against the activists and what they are trying to do, but I don’t hate anyone. In fact, hating people is a sin in my religion.
Opposing a way of life is not hating. Opposing a group of people who should not adopt children from adopting is not hating them. It would be like opposing severely autistic people from adopting, they can’t do it because they are not whole themselves. If you are one of those people who have same-sex attraction, you will know that you are not whole, that there is a part of you that is missing.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 6:42 pm
jonno1, it’s the impact of words that liberals like, not the meaning –
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 6:47 pm
Lucia,
“Last I heard, there was a massive shortage of children available to be adopted. I suppose if we stopped killing 18,000 per year in our hospitals, there might be a few more.”
Or perhaps if Yahwah stopped killing vastly more number than that? So-called chemical pregnancies – very early miscarriages where the woman might not even know she’s pregnant – end around 70% of pregnancies.
( http://www.womens-health-advice.com/questions/chemical-pregnancies.html )
Why does Yahwah kill so many babies, Lucia? Killing them in numbers which absolutely dwarf anything that we do.
Why do you worship a deity that kills hundreds of millions of unborn babies each year?
Wouldn’t a creature that kills hundreds of millions of unborn babies each year be the very definition of something one wouldn’t want to worship?
Next time you pray – indeed, every time you pray – please ask Yahweh to stop killing millions of unborn babies every day.
“I think you would benefit from my anti-porn drive.”
Because porn is responsible for so much hatred, persecution and suffering isn’t it Lucia.
Oh no, wait: that’s religion isn’t it.
Porn, by contrast, has been shown to reduce the incidence of rape.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 6:47 pm
Chiz,
My IQ is over 160.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 6:50 pm
Wrong again Grendall – nobody wants to deprive anybody of anything.
In this world you make choices – if you want a family, you choose a husband or wife, depending on your own gender , who desires the same and is agreeable to undertaking this enterprise with you.
If however your so called “sexual orientation” is what is important to you then family and children have to be traded off to satisfy that which rocks your boat.
Most men, would be, by inclination, promiscuous but those who really value family trade that off and stick to monogamy for the good of their family!.
You cannot have your cake and eat it in this world
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 6:55 pm
Said it before, and will say it again: I’m totally opposed to this.
There should be zero rights for any person or couple to adopt, until the rights of the child(ren) have been met.
Every child, irrespective of race, gender, ethnicity, religion etc has a right to the most beneficial family structure. I believe there’s a order of maximum benefit, and assuming everyone passes the good character test, is starts with a biological mother and father, then on to a family comprised of father, mother and their own biological offspring. The large quantity of research showing the importance of a mother and father figure in raising children suggest that gay couples must, by definition, be towards the bottom of the list.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 6:58 pm
Wat,
God doesn’t kill babies, they die through natural or unnatural causes.
Your very existence is supported by God willing you into life. You would cease to exist if He stopped thinking about you. But He will never do that. As you are immortal, as all human beings are, your life will continue once you physically die on earth, where ever you may end up
There is so much harm in pornography, just listen to the guy on the YouTube. He will tell you.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 7:03 pm
Krazy,
You may be right, but surely the point is that putting the interests of the child requires gay adoption to be an available option.
You’ll remember that Elton John first tried to adopt an HIV positive Ukrainian boy but was disallowed, partly because he isn’t married.
Who here agrees with that decision? Who supports the idea of leaving an HIV positive child in a grubby East European orphanage rather than allowing him to be adopted and cared for by someone who just happen to be homosexual?
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 7:05 pm
dubya@ 2.30 has got it in one.There is no way this issue should be a conscious issue.In fact there should be no such thing.
Especially with MMP and the range of not voted in MP’s.
Bring on a referendum for all to have a say.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 7:07 pm Vote:
May 28th, 2012 at 7:15 pm
wat- is there evidence of NZ children routinely being unable to find NZ adoptive home of the “mum + dad” variety? Sure there will always be celebrety edge-cases (loved by the liberal media), but they don’t create a compelling case for change. More that the said celeb has a good PR team.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 7:23 pm
@Aredhel777
“The purpose of adoption is to provide a child with a family, not to provide adults with children”
Well said.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 7:23 pm
Lucia,
“God doesn’t kill babies, they die through natural or unnatural causes.”
That’s like saying it’s not the man who throws the baby over the cliff that killed it, it’s the rocks at the bottom.
We are talking about the majority of pregnancies naturally aborting.
For an omniscient, omnipotent deity that cannot be an accident. That is deliberate.
Yahweh is deliberately creating hundreds of millions of lives each year in the full knowledge that they will die in the womb.
I cannot imagine a more nauseating, disgusting demon than the one you choose to worship.
As I have remarked before, the hero of the Bible is Satan who had the balls to stand up to the sickening, depraved Yahweh.
“There is so much harm in pornography, just listen to the guy on the YouTube. He will tell you.”
You found a video on the Internet of a guy who confirms your prejudices is all.
Let’s consider the violence, hatred, misogeny, cruelty and perversity of the Bible – largely perpetuated by your kinky demon himself, Yahweh. In fact, because there’s so much sickness there, and you talk about porn, let’s look at how the Bible treats women:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html
Such depraved barbarity. Such endless misogeny. Truly evil stuff
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 7:24 pm
This story was linked to earlier:
Vote:http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2809327/Child-in-legal-black-hole
Anyone have a reason why this woman should be unable to adopt?
May 28th, 2012 at 7:24 pm
O/T a bit, but since wat kind of brought it up…
FREE Download of book in PDF format, The Truth Behind the Fantasy of Porn, by Shelley Lubben.
http://www.shelleylubben.com/sites/default/files/Lubben_Truth_Book.pdf
Warning – it’s not pretty…
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 7:31 pm
wat, yes, let’s explore how the Bible treats women as opposed to today’s society –
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 7:31 pm
krazy,
I have no idea if NZ children are routinely unable to find traditional homes. But that wasn’t my point. My point was that, logically, anyone professing to have the best interests of children at heart cannot exclude any options.
Put another way, by definition, those people here saying that children can under no circumstances can have gay adoptive parents do not have have their best interests at heart. They would rather children have a worse outcome.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 7:33 pm
Fletch,
You are not “exploring” the Bible, you are denying it.
This is what the Bible says about women:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html
You are of course free to ignore the Bible all you wish, and you will be a better person for doing so.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 7:39 pm
Wat,
No, it’s not.
For one, the man in your example did not create the baby or the rocks or the very planet and the ability to anything in a timeline in the first place.
God created everything with a humungous number of physical laws in place, physical laws that He normally keeps to. Superceding physical laws requires a miracle, ie an unnatural intervention in creation. So every pregnancy naturally aborts. Obviously the conditions for successful pregnancy were not met.
You are raging about a God who does not supernaturally intervene in His creation when things go wrong.
That’s a bit bizarre.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 7:42 pm
wat, had a look at your list – a lot of it is silly and has been listed by someone who has no knowledge of the Bible.
Some of them even go against what you have said yourself.
For instance, number #11 – the reason that Lot “offers” his two daughters is because the “mob” wants to rape his two male guests, ie, the sin of homosexual “sex” (I use the word loosely, as it is impossible for persons of the same gender to have sex) and Lot thinks it will be a lessor evil. Of course, that town of Sodom (where we get the word ‘Sodomy’ from) is later destroyed for their sins.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 7:44 pm
Lucia, what is even stranger is that I do not think wat believes in God at all.
He only conjures God into existence in this instance to make an argument about how bad God would be if indeed He did exist.
wat, if you believe God does not exist, then what are you getting all riled about for anyway?
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 7:48 pm
“No Chuck, Lucia, Mark and you are bigots becuase you have intolerance towards others who have done nothing to you. You are bigots becuase you irrationally hate others and wish to deprive them becuase of your views, you are bigots becuause you wish to hide your bigotry behind what you claim some sky pixie beleives. ”
Grendall, for a start I am an agnostic not a Christian as you offensively describe Christians so you are wrong on that point. Do you accept you got that wrong?
“Chuck, your nervousness around the questions you have about your own sexuality are your issue.”
That is just another typical tactic of liberals and homosexuals like calling everyone who disagrees with you a bigot. I could assume you are a homosexual but if I did I would be as ill informed as you.
I am happy to use my full real name. I am not ashamed to say I am over 60. Why are do you hide behind a pseudonym? You may be a woman, a homosexual or lesbian. I do not know if that is true. But I know what you are and that is a coward. You hide behind a alias and abuse others who do not agree with you. I can accept people using pseudonyms for different reason but not to cowardly attack others.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 7:49 pm
wat – If you could deliver a system that guranteed the right of children to an optimum adoptive family would be upheld before, and despite people or couples lobbying for their right to adopt then I’d support you. But we’re not there… as we see by the almost total focus on the ‘rights’ of the would-be adoptors, and near radio-silence on the evidence which points to the ideal.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 7:54 pm
Fletch,
Did you actual Google for the name of that former porn actress before you posted that stuff?
I rather doubt it.
She appears to lie a great deal.
Still, Yahweh found time between killing unborn babies to perform a miracle:
“God also healed me of the non-curable disease herpes.”
http://test1.shelleylubben.com/former-porn-star-shelley-lubben
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 7:54 pm
Well you’d appear to be an exception in my experience.
Hmm, maybe – thing is research has shown that the outcomes for the adopted children of gay couples are at least as good as those for heterosexual adopters.
Imo, the ideal purpose of adoption is to provide a child with a loving and stable family environment as well as fulfilling maternal or paternal aspirations. There is no rational reason to exclude gay couples from meeting those criteria.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 8:01 pm
She appears to lie a great deal.
wat, because she says she was healed, you believe she is lying? Why?
Lots of people have been healed; people who even have hospital records to prove it and have been healed in ways that the hospital cannot understand or explain.
You may not believe in miracles, but I do.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 8:02 pm
@ fletch:
the Bible preaching that women are to be admired for being selfless, and courageous, and willing to do the unpleasant or difficult things which men are not, is not the same as preaching that women are human beings deserving of the same rights as men. If anything, it reinforces the idea that women are born to suffer, while men are born for glory.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 8:03 pm
Scott, the rational reason is that a gay couple can never be a mother and father figure in a family relationship. Another rational reason is that it’s NOT about the rights, capability or inclination of the would-be adoptive couple. It’s about the rights of the child.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 8:06 pm
Lucia,
Let’s be clear, you are saying that the deity in your belief system is incapable of using its magic powers to ensure that the majority of lives it creates are not naturally aborted during the first few weeks.
“Obviously the conditions for successful pregnancy were not met.
An omniscient deity would know this, of course. Yet still Yahweh chooses to wave his magic wand millions of times a day and create new human lives, in the full knowledge that most will be dead in weeks.
Hundreds of millions of unborn babies die unecessarily each year because of the incompetence or indifference of the magical pixie.
The only religious lesson here is that unborn babies are entirely expendable and indeed of no consequence whatsover.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 8:08 pm
salt, before Christianity, women were seen as chattel. It was through Judaism and Christianity that they were accepted as being equal. In fact, you could say that women are treated worse today than in Biblical times.
MORE – http://www.gty.org/resources/articles/a265
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 8:16 pm
wat, what is “dead”?
For those who do not believe in God, it means ceasing to exist – to end.
But if you believe in God (and for the purposes of this discussion, you seem to be supposing He does exist), then you believe also in an afterlife. Because a baby is so innocent and pure, it is believed that they will go straight to Heaven to be with God. So, they are now experiencing joy with God.
Let me ask you this: is it better that a child die naturally in the womb before it has really started to grow, or that its life is taken violently by the mother, either through chemical drowning in a salt solution, or by being dismembered and sucked out?
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 8:18 pm
Fletch,
“wat, had a look at your list – a lot of it is silly and has been listed by someone who has no knowledge of the Bible.”
I wouldn’t describe it as “silly”, I was describe it as morally reprehensible and depraved.
And it is entirely irrelevent whether the person who compiled the list has little knowledge of the Bible or knows it in depth: sick and depraved is sick and depraved.
“You may not believe in miracles, but I do.”
An easy thing to say, but we both know that you won’t be waving away the medics if you break your leg.
And have you noticed how Yahweh tends to help rich Westerners whilst completely ignoring the starving mass misery in Africa. He certainly is a deity for the middle classes isn’t he.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 8:19 pm
What a load of tosh – in the Christian world women are held to be more valuable than men – as reflected perhaps in the Titanic thing – you know “Women and children first ”
Likewise in the winter of 1943 it was New Zealand men not women dying in the Italian snow and mud.
It is a fact of nature that women carry children and that in days of yore this carried risk – women can whine about this and screech it is unfair but that is the way it is.
And in those same days of yore men put themselves at great risk to protect their women and died horrible deaths in the process but you will never hear male complaint about ancestors writhing their last days impaled upon a stake by the barbarian hordes, captured as they protected their families (ie women and children).
Now it is a fundamental necessity that human beings reproduce and for reasons known only to God and not ever satifactorily explained by evolutionary biologists it takes one male coupled with one female to produce a child – can’t happen any other way despite the perversions of science to produce offspring for the infertile.
And the best way of raising such a child is for the male and female progenitors of said child to work as a team to raise it and to raise it in such a manner that in its time it will do the same.
This arrangement being so optimal that it is common across ages and cultures and the more successfully imbeded in a culture the more successful and prosperous that culture has become – invariably.
And when this fails – so does the culture in which the failure occurs. A pattern repeated throughout history.
And deliberately undermining the traditional family is cultural suicide – which is what we are doing.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 8:20 pm
Fun as all this religious blather is, how about turning back to adoption reform? I posted a link above to a story of a mother unable to adopt due to the current law. Still no one keen to say why she shouldn’t be allowed?
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 8:21 pm
Fletch, I’ll take the freedom to control my own life thanks, both the good and the bad, the opportunities and the risks – just like you, as a man, get to enjoy. I’m not a slut, and I haven’t been taken advantage of or degraded: sure, the risk is there, but I would not trade my freedom for a gilded cage where women are ostensibly ‘protected’ from those things (as long as they behave nicely and do what the menfolk tell them to) but are still systematically demeaned and devalued by the very system that claims to be doing it to us for our own good.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 8:26 pm
@ mikenmild. Yeah sorry, sometimes they just make me mad and I can’t help myself.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 8:26 pm
Fletch,
“Because a baby is so innocent and pure, it is believed that they will go straight to Heaven to be with God. So, they are now experiencing joy with God.”
This is not what most Christians believe.
Most maintain that you have to “accept Jesus as your saviour” in order to get into the Christian version of the afterlife.
Babies and children who die do so without achieving this status, so they are condemned to Hell.
Yahweh is knowingly sending hundreds of millions of babies almost directly to Hell when he creates the with the full knowledge that they’ll be dead in the womb in a month.
If you don’t believe this then you reject that idea that one is saved by faith alone. Maybe you’re a Catholic.
“is it better that a child die naturally in the womb before it has really started to grow, or that its life is taken violently by the mother, either through chemical drowning in a salt solution, or by being dismembered and sucked out?”
The former, definately. Which is why abortions should only be allowed within a certain time limit, so you are aborting a foetus and not a baby.
If it is okay for Yahweh to engineer hundreds of millions of deaths in the womb each year then clearly he doesn’t have a problem with it.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 8:27 pm
And have you noticed how Yahweh tends to help rich Westerners whilst completely ignoring the starving mass misery in Africa. He certainly is a deity for the middle classes isn’t he.
wat, OK, I’ll for a moment pretend that I believe the opposite about God – that he doesn’t exist.
So, without a God to blame, NOW whose fault do you reckon it is for all the starving in Third World Countries? Without him to blame, whose fault is it?
In truth, God gave us this world to share. The reason we have starving comes down to human GREED. It’s like that old example of the fish – pretend that you have bought a goldfish – you create the ultimate environment for it – a beautiful glass bowl, oxygen weed or a bubble making oxygen machine, a little house to swim through, some nice pebbles etc. Now, you introduce another fish and one attacks the other. Is it your fault? You have created the perfect environment for them both, and you sprinkle fish food in daily enough for both.
It’s the same with Earth. God has provided enough for everyone. Is it not GREED that has caused the imbalance? What do you want God to do? If He came down and tried to fix things you would accuse him of interfering in human lives, wouldn’t you?
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 8:28 pm
Babies and children who die do so without achieving this status, so they are condemned to Hell.
I do not know anyone who believes this, especially of children who have not been born. And yes, I am Catholic, and have mentioned this many times in the past.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 8:34 pm
“So, without a God to blame, NOW whose fault do you reckon it is for all the starving in Third World Countries? Without him to blame, whose fault is it?”
….the fault of the dysfunctional political systems in the countries in question?…..
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 8:34 pm
Fletch,
“I do not know anyone who believes this, especially of children who have not been born. ”
It is the bedrock of Protestantism; that one is saved by faith alone.
All Protestants believe this; they just try to wriggle out of the logical consequences of their position. A child that dies cannot have accepted Jesus as its saviour and is therefore condemned to Hell along with the atheists, followers of all other religions and those who never learned about Jesus.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 8:36 pm
Probably the fault of the aggressive Christian urge to conquer the world.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 8:39 pm
It is not about what gay coulpes can offer but what a child needs.
Sure, probably many gay coulpes can love and nurture, but in this instance, the child goes without half of it’s parenting experiance.
It may be funny to watch on a tv sitcom but a young girl facing her first menstral matter, or buying her first bra, needs a mother not either of or even one of her adoptive fathers.
Also, MOST men in NZ’s prisons grew up without time spent with their natural fathers.And that is only the ones who go to prison.Not the under educated, unemployed, drunk, druged or those who committed suicide.
I can only see a lot of problems from this.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 8:44 pm
Well I’m a Protestant and believe it or not I don’t believe God condemns millions of babies of aborted foetuses to hell either. It is much more complicated than that if you actually look into various Protestant positions on the subject. The Bible says that Jesus descended into hell and preached to everyone there and gave them the opportunity to come to heaven if they would repent. C.S. Lewis suggests that as time works differently with God, this applies to everyone before and after the crucifixion.
I don’t think anyone is going to be condemned to hell out of pure ignorance regarding God’s existence or a lack of opportunity to repent before they are born. It’ll be your stubbornness and pride and refusal to acknowledge and repent of your sin that will get you there.
There are many other arguments to be made on the subject, among them that unborn babies have never actually committed sin and therefore go straight to heaven, but you’re just looking to score points against Christians and there’s really not much point in continuing. If you’re sincerely interested in the subject, which I doubt, you’ll look it up for yourself.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 8:51 pm
Fletch,
“So, without a God to blame, NOW whose fault do you reckon it is for all the starving in Third World Countries? Without him to blame, whose fault is it?”
It is nobody’s fault, because grinding poverty, unlike your comfortably furnished fishbowl fantasy, is our natural state. Short, harsh lives are the default condition.
It is human ingenuity and work that has allowed many of us to escape from such misery.
Your notions about us being provided with everything we need are completely childish.
But the point about starving Africans was that your loving deity seems content to sit on its hands whilst hundreds of millions of entirely innocent people endure horrendous suffering.
Would you do nothing if you could fix everything just by waving a magic wand? I rather doubt it: only if you were a sadist of the worst order.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 8:52 pm
Aredhel,
The foundation of Protestantism is salvation by faith alone.
So whatever you are, you are not a Protestant.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 8:53 pm
As I alluded to before, the reason for the starving millions in Africa is the legacy of Christian colonisation. So it is God’s fault, in a way…
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 8:54 pm
“the reason for the starving millions in Africa is the legacy of Christian colonisation.”
What a complete load of crap.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 8:56 pm
“As I alluded to before, the reason for the starving millions in Africa is the legacy of Christian colonisation.”
Like Zimbabwe.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 8:59 pm
Exactly, Andy.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 9:02 pm
wat – if salvation is by willful faith, and damnation is by willful rejection of faith… then you can choose whether a loving God saves or condemns a person created in His image who has yet to exercise that willfulness. My money’s on the former.
Side note – should this go to GD? O/T and all that.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 9:03 pm
I just looked up the Catholic Catechism, and he is a more exact answer –
I still do not consider that unbaptised babies would go to Hell.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 9:04 pm
mikenmild #
“….As I alluded to before, the reason for the starving millions in Africa is the legacy of Christian colonisation. So it is God’s fault, in a way…”
So God sends blacks crazy ?
Colonisation of Africa by the White man was looooong ago.
Since then Africa has been lead by blacks.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 9:06 pm
Just consider the fate of Africa before Christianity. Before – no starvation. After – mass starvation. Just saying.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 9:09 pm
But back to that troublesome adoption question. As mentioned earlier, Stuff reported:
‘A gay Christchurch woman is upset that she cannot adopt her three-year-old daughter.
Vote:Under New Zealand law, same-sex couples cannot adopt children.
Canterbury University lecturer Dr Linda-Jean Kenix believes she and her long-term partner, Jennifer Kenix, have been left “in a [legal] black hole”.
The couple have two children. Linda-Jean Kenix’s biological son Grady, 4, was born in the United States and legally adopted by Jennifer Kenix. However, the pair’s second child, Zoey, 3, was born in New Zealand to Jennifer, meaning Linda-Jean Kenix could not adopt her.’
Any reason why this woman should not be allowed to adopt?
May 28th, 2012 at 9:09 pm
But the point about starving Africans was that your loving deity seems content to sit on its hands whilst hundreds of millions of entirely innocent people endure horrendous suffering.
And what are you doing to alleviate it then?
Vote:The fact is that it is Christian charities who do a great bulk of alleviating suffering caused by hunger and poverty around the World. Rather than “sitting on His hands”, God has no hands now to act apart from our own as Teresa of Avila said –
May 28th, 2012 at 9:12 pm
mm – are you angling for the “full of shit” prize for the night?!? It’s usually a tough race, but phil seems to have dropped/doped out so you could be in with a chance.
Hey perhaps TV is to blame. I mean, before we had TV there was no starvation in africa, no floods in china and no earthquakes in Turkey.
While you ponder that, I’ll be thankful that my great-great-great-great grandfather (a nasty Christian!) risked his neck stopping the slave trade in Sierra Leone in the 1830′s.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 9:13 pm
Original Sin:
Ask your priest if you don’t believe me.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 9:14 pm
I’m reasonably serious here. The Christian invasions and total subjugation of Africa in the 19th century is the direct cause of the present-day woes in that continent.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 9:16 pm
krazy,
“if salvation is by willful faith, and damnation is by willful rejection of faith”
You are twisting Scripture like a lawyer to match your desires.
Why do Christians always do that?
Why are they incapable of giving the Bible a straight reading?
The answer, of course, is that it is barbaric.
In particular, you just invented the “and damnation is by willful rejection of faith” bit.
Surely twisting Scripture like this is Satanic?
Protestantism is salvation by faith alone. End of story.
Children and babies are unable to qualify.
Fletch,
As you demonstrate, Catholics have complete freedom to invent whatever clauses and conditions they wish.
“Another suggestion is that these persons may have a form of “baptism of desire” through the desire of their parents, of the Church, or of someone else. ”
The words “whole cloth” spring to mind, don’t they.
I’ll accept that under Catholicism children not only go to Heaven but they also get a pony. Whatever you like.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 9:23 pm
Fletch,
“Rather than “sitting on His hands”, God has no hands now to act apart from our own”
That makes no sense at all.
If an omnipotent deity is sitting on its hands then, by definition, it is through choice.
So you are telling me there is an omnipotent deity standing idly by, watching the appalling suffering of hundreds of millions of innocent children.
That may indeed be true. But if so, that deity is a worthless, vile demon.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 9:26 pm
@MM
“As I alluded to before, the reason for the starving millions in Africa is the legacy of Christian colonisation.”
Like Zimbabwe.
“Exactly, Andy.”
Thanks for clearing that up MM.
Vote:From the ‘bread basket of Africa’ to the ‘basket case of Africa’ in 30 years.
And while I thought it was the indigenous Marxist kleptomaniacs, edged on and supported by their brain dead left wing supporters, it was the fault of those nasty Christians all over again.
Who’d have thunk it?
May 28th, 2012 at 9:36 pm
Exactly Andy. Zimbabwe is a great example of the havoc wreaked by Christian colonialism. Colonised for a hundred years or so; thirty years later and they’re still not over it.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 9:41 pm
But, again, the main thing I don’t understand is why Linda-Jean Kenix is not allowed to adopt.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 9:51 pm
milktitties
Ethiopia was one of the very first Christian kingdoms in the world going back to the earliest days of the church. Mussalmen have a degree of respect for the place (when it suits) as some of Mos’ followers found refuge there when their Meccan mates were kicking shit out of them. To this day Ethiopia is majority Christian.
It has practically always been self ruling (until Mussolini). Please discuss why it is currently a basket case since you assert it is all the fault of 19C Christian invasion. Please include Marxist dictatorship ,drought and war with Muslim neighbours in your answer.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 9:59 pm
@mikenmild
“…the main thing I don’t understand…..”
Reading your comments today, that should be
“…one of the many things I don’t understand….”
Fixed it for you.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 10:10 pm
wat, I believe God is a just God. He won’t judge His creation against knowledge they don’t have. The choice of accepting salvation is a cognative one. Until a person has made a cognative rejection of the offer of salvation they can’t have had the recources to accept it. Reading your posts I looks to me like you’re searching – for something. I’d be happy to talk (and I’ll buy the beer/wine/coffee – krazykiwi.kiwiblog@gmail.com).
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 10:13 pm
Wow… just wow… this did not take long to sink into the predictable name calling, cesspit, we should all expect.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 10:39 pm
Wat,
Is any parent who takes their child to the dentist for a filling a worthless, vile demon as well?
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 10:52 pm
Marxist dictatorship ,drought and war with Muslim neighbours in your answer.
Before or after the colonisation, KT? If after, you may find the concept of consequentialism helpful in your quest.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 11:07 pm
What the fuck!
I commented on this thread at the start. When I come back 100+ comments later it’s full of Left-wing half-baked emotional ‘arguments’ for gay ‘marriage’ as well as a bunch of uncharitable rants by apparent ‘Christians’.
You guys need to relax. Maybe get out a bit more. Go for walk, call your mum, do some press-ups.
Sheesh!
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 11:58 pm
What is with the endless posting on this trivial issue.
I am sure some rich homo has some serious dirt on David, what did you do?
[DPF: I've blogged on same sex adoption six times in four years, and twice since the election. You seem to be the one with a problem.]
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 12:00 am
I’m reasonably serious here. The Christian invasions and total subjugation of Africa in the 19th century is the direct cause of the present-day woes in that continent.
Ha!!
Ha ha!!!
Ha!! ha !! ha!! ha!!
Bwaaa!! ha ha!
BWWWWWWAAAAAAA!!!!! HAAAAA!!! HA!!! HAAAAAAAAAAARRRRR!! HA! HA!!!
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 12:03 am
One minute those Christians are telling Africans to love thine neighbor and treat others how you want to be treated, the next minute Hutu’s are hacking up Tutsi’s as a consequence.
F@ckin Christians and their evil religion, you see what they made them do??
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 1:14 am
Here is some hard cold facts for the fucktards like Lucia, Fletch, EWS and all the other jesus loving, paedo priest worshipping bigots. Get over it. How dare you tell other Kiwis who they are allowed to marry or what they are allowed to do in their bedrooms. Who said you had the right to dictate to everybody else from your book of fiction?
Your religion is so full of lies and inconsistencies. Take slaves, don’t take slaves, eat shellfish, don’t eat shellfish, fuck your father, honour your mother and father… get a grip. You are the last people our society should be looking at for “moral guidance”. Your sick views on marriage polluted Kiwiblog over the last month but this is simply ridiculous. A child should have the right to 2 parents that love them unconditionally. If you have bought your kids up to not like gay people and encourage their exclusion in our society then you are the types of parents we can do without.
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 7:48 am
Just thought I should check back in and see why the opponents of adoption reform believe Linda-Jean Kenix should not be allowed to adopt. Surprise, surprise, no response. C’mon, it’s just one example of the need for reform. Surely the conservatives and Christians should be able to argue one specific case. I know it’s much easier to stick to rambling generalisations about marriage, etc, but give arguing by example a try,please.
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 9:05 am
No takers?
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 9:21 am
The was a very interesting caller to NewstalkZB last night. It is by a young man raised by two lesbians. His story is a lot different than the cherry picked stories of homosexual rights advocates.
He does not have or desire contact with either of them one of which was a man hating bull dyke. I am not saying this is the case all or even most of the time. However, put a lie to the claim that kids raised in such an unnatural environment will seldom suffer ill effects.
You can to the call at
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/listen-on-demand/weekondemand/
Pick 00:30 to 00:45. The call starts about 3 minutes in and goes for about 10 minutes.
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 9:27 am
Chuck
Vote:Is that a reason to disallow all homsexuals from parenting? Or just an illustration that any parent can be lousy? Would that young man’s experience be a good reason for Linda-Jean Kenix should not to be allowed to adopt?
May 29th, 2012 at 9:32 am
mikenmild, I do not know who Linda-Jean Kenix is. Why should I bother finding out as you have not have time to listen to the audio link?
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 9:34 am
I read your summary. You can read this from Stuff:
Vote:‘A gay Christchurch woman is upset that she cannot adopt her three-year-old daughter.
Under New Zealand law, same-sex couples cannot adopt children.
Canterbury University lecturer Dr Linda-Jean Kenix believes she and her long-term partner, Jennifer Kenix, have been left “in a [legal] black hole”.
The couple have two children. Linda-Jean Kenix’s biological son Grady, 4, was born in the United States and legally adopted by Jennifer Kenix. However, the pair’s second child, Zoey, 3, was born in New Zealand to Jennifer, meaning Linda-Jean Kenix could not adopt her.’
Any reason why this woman should not be allowed to adopt?
May 29th, 2012 at 10:07 am
@Chuck B: “I am not saying this is the case all or even most of the time. However, put a lie to the claim that kids raised in such an unnatural environment will seldom suffer ill effects.”
So … what ARE you saying about kids raised by a same-sex couple – that not many of them will be screwed up, or most of them will be? Furthermore, if one example is a good basis for generalising across everyone in a class, I guess we’ll have to stop millionaires raising children: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9291051/Millionaires-daughter-Laura-Johnson-jailed-for-two-years-after-being-caught-up-by-thrill-of-London-riots.html
I mean, doesn’t this girl’s case graphically illustrate that “kids raised in such an unnatural environment [of wealth and privilege] will seldom suffer ill effects” … mustn’t the state act to stop such harm being visited on other kids in the future?
That aside, however, what is the actual relevance of the story you link to? The person involved was raised by a same-sex couple, irrespective of the law on adoption. So how will allowing same sex couples to adopt “worsen” things? You are aware, aren’t you, how few “stranger” adoptions there are in NZ … and that it’s the birth mum who decides who the child is adopted to in such cases? So, the issue really is that raised by mikenmild – there are lots and lots of kids currently being raised by same-sex couples, but the law will not allow member each of that couple to have equal parenting rights. Why is that a good thing?
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 10:44 am
@mikenmild. The reason is that I beleive some laws and rules are best to be arbitrary. Some children at 15 are extremely mature. However, that is not a reason to allow any mature adult should be able to argue that they should be allowed to have sex with them. Another thing homosexual militants have argued the the ban on blood donations should be decided on a case by case basis. Do you also support that?
If homosexual adoption and marriage becomes law it will not be long before more demands come. If society gives its stamp of approval we will see more of these arrangements. There will be more bullying. Then there will be more demands for the more social engineering in schools education the students that there parents are wrong when they will not let their kids go to the home of kinds with 2 dads for legitimate fear of sexual abuse.
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 10:55 am
Get over it. How dare you tell other Kiwis who they are allowed to marry or what they are allowed to do in their bedrooms.
@Liberal Minded Kiwi –
1) I don’t care what people do in their bedrooms. Not at all. What I do care about is when it comes out of the bedroom and presumes to tell me that sodomy is equal to sexual intercourse, and that laws must be changed so that I and the rest of society must accept it as being normal and lawful; that it be taught to children in school as being normal, and that anyone who disagrees is a homophobic, hate-filled, bigot.
2) I don’t tell other Kiwis who they can marry – the law does. Among those who cannot marry are – adult and minor, two minors, adult and close relative (such as cousin or sibling), adult and animal, adult and more than one spouse, and yes, adult and someone of the same sex. There are very good reasons for all of these. Now, if we’re going to allow couples of the same gender to marry, then why shouldn’t some of the people in my other example be allowed? After all, it’s “not fair” on them, is it?
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 10:57 am
“So … what ARE you saying about kids raised by a same-sex couple – that not many of them will be screwed up, or most of them will be? ”
What I am saying is that none of us really know. However, from what I have read this scenario happens a lot more than libertarians would like the public to beleive.
I think there should be proper public debate and the public have a final say with a voters veto.
You are an academic. Do you know of any research that shows the average MPs has a better conscience than the average voter?
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 10:59 am
Wow, there’s a comprehensive set of reasons. We have to have some arbitrary rules on adoption so you can prevent your kids from socialising with kids of whose parent you disapprove? Wow.
Vote:I don’t know anything about blood donations that is relevant to a discussion on adoption.
May 29th, 2012 at 11:07 am
“You are an academic. Do you know of any research that shows the average MPs has a better conscience than the average voter?”
Nope. But if your understanding of and thinking about this issue provides an example of “the average voter”, then I’m happy to put it in the hands of 120-odd folks who might spend a bit more time and intellectual energy actually working out what it is all about.
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 11:28 am
The problem with academics like you is that you arrogantly think that because you qualify in one area you know more than the average person about everything.
Judging by just your above comment you know little about politics and what motives MPs to vote on a issue?
Do you believe that that many MPs will spend much reading research or take any notice of submissions that go against their own personal views?
Take the smacking issue. About 87% of the population opposed.
Can you tell why Key voted for such a law that criminalised good parents?
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 11:36 am
wow liberal minded kiwi comes across real liberal………
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 11:41 am
“Can you tell why Key voted for such a law that criminalised good parents?”
Because it was a good law, and the use of violence against children is not good parentlng.
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 11:42 am
I see Fletch has gone back to the argument that same-sex marriage would be the pathway to human-animal marriage. Ha ha. But, aside from that silly strawman, the thread was about adoption by same-ex couples, remember. I’d still like to hear any reason why Linda-Jean Kenix should not to be allowed to adopt.
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 11:52 am
“Because it was a good law, and the use of violence against children is not good parentlng. ”
FAIL You have just proved how uninformed you are. Do you you want another guess or do you want some uneducated peasant to give you the answer?
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 1:08 pm
Maybe my learned friend needs a hint.
The welfare of children had nothing to do with Key’s decision to do a flip flop.
Key’s motive was simply votes. Key would just as quickly do another flip flop on the issue if it would keep him in power.
As we all know the results of the polls and referendum we 87% opposed to a law that criminalised good parents.
Can you explain how Key worked out he would gain more votes than he would loss?
Vote:May 30th, 2012 at 8:26 am
So Grendel we now understand that you believe anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you is a Christian bigot. That makes sense on so many levels.
Is there nothing rational you can add to the debate?
it fascinates me that this debate is about gay people and their rights and is not about children and their rights. It is not an issue of Christianity or bigotry so I am unsure why you have raised it. As I said earlier adopted children have enough to deal with without having to spend their lives justifying their adoptive parents lifestyle choices.
It or me this is not about gay people it is about the rights of children. I do not have any particular view on gay marriage etc but I do in respect of gay adoption . It simply goes against the intent of the act that the rights of the child take preced
Vote:May 30th, 2012 at 8:31 am
Grendel there is always some moron who claims that those who do not hold a like minded view to their own is a bigoted Christian.
What I have not seen in this blOg anywhere is how the interests of a child are enhanced by gay adoption. It is a debate now about the rights of gay couples not about children. Now that is surprising.
Vote:May 31st, 2012 at 4:15 am
mikenmild – never agreed with you before but in this issue I do 100%. Fletch on the other hand really honestly believes that homosexual sex is akin to animals having sex. However he will argue until he’s blue in the face that these acts simply do not exist in the animal kingdom, despite all the facts saying otherwise.
On another thread he used a Yahoo survey to justify that people (barely) didn’t agree with gays being allowed to adopt – he’s clutching at straws but at least the Yahoo survey is more accurate than the bible
Vote: