Key says he will vote in favour of same sex marriage bill at first reading

May 14th, 2012 at 11:45 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Prime Minister says he would give initial support to a proposed bill allowing gay marriage. 

Labour’s rainbow caucus chair Louisa Wall said she was drafting a private members’ bill which would define marriage and enable same sex couples to wed.

The bill, which has yet to be discussed by the wider Labour caucus, would have to be drawn from a ballot before it went before Parliament. …

Key this morning said he would vote for the bill’s first reading if it was pulled from the ballot.

“Personally I’m not opposed. There will be a range of views of course. Let’s have the debate.”

The bill may not get drawn for months or years, so the debate may not be immediate. But having seen nothing bad happen with civil unions (except allowing people in a stable relationship commit to each other and gain legal rights), I can’t see too many getting worked up about .

UK Conservative Prime Minister said last year:

The Prime Minister said “commitment” in relationships should be valued regardless of whether it involved “a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and another man”. …

Speaking to the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester, Mr Cameron said: “We’re consulting on legalising gay marriage. To anyone who has reservations, I say: Yes, it’s about equality, but it’s also about something else: commitment.

“Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other.

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

Well said.

Tags: , ,

153 Responses to “Key says he will vote in favour of same sex marriage bill at first reading”

  1. Redbaiter (8,337 comments) says:

    Much like David Cameron, John Key is a weak and spineless compromiser taking the National Party far from its Conservative roots.

    He should be the leader of the Labour party, not National.

    Go Colin Craig- put these National Party Marxist interlopers in their place.

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

    That would be the same John Key that voted against Civil Unions?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. tom hunter (4,699 comments) says:

    Gay marriage again? For the third time in a matter of days.

    I understand that in the USA the Obama campaign wants to talk about any bright, shiny new thing they can that will attract media attention and generate lots of talk that crowds out discussions about the economy, but here in NZ surely there is not the same need to …

    Oh!.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Graeme Edgeler (3,281 comments) says:

    “Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other.”

    He should be careful, he’ll get kicked out of the club:

    There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.”
    ~ M. Thatcher.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. kowtow (8,184 comments) says:

    I’d be careful of using Cameron for moral sustenance there.

    He’s going down the shitter pretty quick with real British conservatives.

    And he ain’t a real conservative anyway. Gay marriage and Lords reform, he’s a Blairite wearing blue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    If Key would only show this determination in pursuing the real reforms NZ needs.
    Smile-and-wave is an unashamed populist of wavering or no principles.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. KevinH (1,204 comments) says:

    “I can’t see too many getting worked up about same sex marriage.”

    DPF, Talkback and feedback on the Herald’s site has been vociferiously opposed to a change in law.
    In 1986 the Homosexual Law Reform Bill was introduced into the House by Fran Wilde and quickly attracted attention from christain groups who organised a nationwide petition that attracted 800,000 signatures against.
    National M.P. Norman Jones asked parliament not to legalise sodomy, and critics of the Bill complained that it would change the face of New Zealand society by turning it “queer”.
    Twenty years on from the passing of the Bill none of those predictions have come to pass but nevertheless opposition to homosexuality and same sex marriage is still rabid as ever.
    My view is that the debate will be as equally divisive and plain nasty as it was back in ’86 and has the potential to make or break the careers of politicians depending on the demographic of their respective electorates.
    Following hard on the heels of legitamising gay marriage will be gay adoption, another issue that will polarise the community as the debate and law takes shape.

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

    David Cameron is not a conservative. In his own words he belives in “muscular liberalism”.

    What is a real conservative? Click my name to find out.

    I am saddened by this move from Key.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,570 comments) says:

    Good grief, a dog whistle that’s a sure fire way to bring out the nutters. Redbaiter was a little too quick to respond wasn’t he?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Why mention just a first reading? Will Key vote for the bill when it’s crunch time and the bill becomes law? I suspect Key will show his true colours and vote against the bill. Later he’ll make some pathetic excuse about how he supports gay marriage but Moonbeam told him to vote against it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. tvb (4,325 comments) says:

    There is a public benefit in having and encouraging relationships and marriage is part of that especially for those who are relugi

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Leaping Jimmy (16,227 comments) says:

    Gay marriage supporters by definition attack and undermine the standing of the family unit as a social more in people’s minds by reducing the social more of “marriage” to being about sex, when it is currently about children. Why anyone thinks a positive outcome will arise from this I have no idea, but that is what supporters do, whether they consciously intend to do this or not.

    Given there is no difference in legal standing between civil union and marriage, it boils down to a label. (Gay adoption can be arranged without giving gays the label, if anyone cares to conflate that issue – gay adoption, with this one – gay marriage.)

    So in effect, supporters of gay marriage sell the sacred concept of the family unit down the river for nothing, a label. So not only do they abrogate their responsibility to uphold what is right, true and just in their own society, they do it cheaply, for a label.

    If supporters care to argue they are not selling the family unit down the river, then pray explain why, in their opinion, gays want the label? If the label isn’t important, then why is there a global protest movement to install it in all the western democracies? Why? Gays have civil union laws elsewhere, don’t they. In the UK, in the US, in the EU, in Canada, in Australia, here. So if the label is a mere nothing and it doesn’t matter so why not just let them have it, if that is the case, why is there a global movement for it, and for nothing but it?

    Anyone who understands how propaganda works to change mass thinking can answer that question. It’s used in branding every day of the week. That’s labelling.

    Honestly this is so elementary I really get sick of explaining it. What about any of this is difficult to understand? And finally, it’s not tomorrow you have to look at when considering the effects of the label, either, is it. Of course not. It’s 1-2 generations down the track, you have to look at. When the 2nd generation, born in 2020, comes to maturity in 2040, what is marriage going to be like as a social more, to that generation? That’s what you have to look at, when you’re determining whether the family unit will be irrevocably changed by an altered association from marriage = family to marriage = sex, in people’s minds.

    So that’s what supporters need to consider and don’t bother pretending the above is wrong, it’s not. This IS how propaganda works, propaganda DOES change social mores, it’s quite obvious marriage WILL in people’s minds = sex, not family after gays become inextricably equated with it. None of this can be denied. This is elementary social engineering.

    The worst part is many supporters view this as supporting some sort of human right when obviously it’s nothing of the sort if gays have ALL legal rights which they already do. If they don’t have ALL legal rights then let’s debate amendments to the Civil Union ACT, not amendments to the Marriage Act. Anything else is anti-family. Simple. As. That.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. RRM (9,782 comments) says:

    I’m still waiting for someone (conservative or otherwise) to explain why it would be a bad thing if gays are allowed to get married.

    The problem seems to be based on an idea that gays aren’t proper human beings, therefore it would damage Society and therefore it just shouldn’t be allowed, because the role of government is to regulate people’s lives…

    (Either that or it’s “anti-family”, whatever that means…?)

    perhaps there is someone here who can explain it more eloquently than I?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Redbaiter (8,337 comments) says:

    Don’t worry guys, the more that Custard Key comes out in favour of homosexual marriage, the more votes for the Conservative Party and Colin Craig, who unlike the cowardly Key, at least has the guts to take a strong unwavering stand on the issue.

    The Nats are done. They’re just Labour with a faint blue tinge.

    Vote Conservative Party and boot this clutch of spineless Progressive Marxist traitors who today control the National Party out of power.

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

    Draws the bigots like flys to shite this does…..;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. RRM (9,782 comments) says:

    Anything else is anti-family. Simple. As. That.

    Leaping Jimmy:

    Can you please explain how your family would be affected by gay marriage?

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

    The future is young,liberal and tolerant. These insecure dinosaurs like Hate-baiter etc are yesterdays fish & chip paper in the process of happening….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Redbaiter (8,337 comments) says:

    “perhaps there is someone here who can explain it more eloquently than I?”

    Thanks for the laff.

    Describing yourself as “eloquent”.

    Pffft…

    Maybe if you’d ever had an education rather than an indoctrination, you could even reach coherent, but never eloquent. That takes intelligence, an ingredient that is going to be sadly forever absent in your personal development.

    Homosexuals cannot ever consummate their “marriages”, therefore any homosexual “marriage” is a farce.

    And we don’t need marriage being turned into a greater farce than what liberals have already made of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. RRM (9,782 comments) says:

    Homosexuals cannot consummate their “marriages”, therefore any homosexual “marriage” is a farce.

    And why is that a problem for you redbaiter?

    I have to ask, because someone else calling himself “conservative” is saying quite explicitly marriage is about families, not about sex.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. alex (302 comments) says:

    Key moves to distract everyone from unpopular policies by announcing something warm and fuzzy. Yes, gays should be able to marry, and I think the majority of New Zealanders are pretty relaxed on this. However, it is not the biggest issue right now. I hope this goes through very quickly so the next few years aren’t dominated by this issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Redbaiter (8,337 comments) says:

    “The future is young,liberal and tolerant. These insecure dinosaurs like Hate-baiter etc are yesterdays fish & chip paper in the process of happening….”

    Yeah of course-

    That’s why your Marxist buddy Obama and all his progressive mates are running scared, you behind the times uninformed jerkoff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Gulag1917 (857 comments) says:

    Mr Key is going to find himself out at the next election unless he shows some backbone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Leaping Jimmy (16,227 comments) says:

    Can you please explain how your family would be affected by gay marriage?

    RRM as I explained this is about the concept of marriage as a social more in people’s minds. If you don’t know what a social more is then look it up. You will see it has nothing to do with any particular family. It is the concept of the institution of marriage, as people perceive it to be.

    By allowing gays to use the label of “marriage” you shift the concept from what it has been since time immemorial throughout civilisation, of marriage occuring when people want to have children, to the concept of marriage occuring when people want to have sex.

    The fact that some people never have children, is irrelevent. Again, we are talking about a social more. Again, if you don’t understand what that is, then look it up. I only say this because as soon as I explain the above some idiots come along and say, well what about childless marriages. Those are irrelevent because we are talking about ther collective perception of what marriage is, across the entire society.

    Hope that helps RRM.

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

    “The problem seems to be based on an idea that gays aren’t proper human beings, therefore it would damage Society and therefore it just shouldn’t be allowed, because the role of government is to regulate people’s lives… ”

    Nobody has said “gays” are not proper human beings. Homosexuality is a behaviour, not a state of being. It is the behaviour that is the issue.

    As to the threat to society, look at Europe. gay marriage, and the entire edifice of gay rights has resulted in increasingly totalitarian laws against “hate speech” that have effectively done away with freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Lucia Maria (2,278 comments) says:

    “Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other.

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

    As I said when David Cameron came out with these comments last year, his first statement is correct, conservatives do believe that society is stronger when we make vows to each other (through marriage) and support each other.

    However, his second statement belies the first. Gay marriage destroys what we know marriage to be and replaces it with a romantic partnership that doesn’t have as a natural outcome the rearing of children. It therefore will act to destroy society, as how we understand families and vows and lifelong commitment will change. Mexico’s marriage trial of two years shows the erosion of understanding that is at play here (See the link on my actual post on NZ Conservative).

    If Cameron believes the two statements, he’s a fool. Presumably a well-meaning fool, but still a fool. But, he’d not get away with saying such things if everyone around him knew they were foolish. Our society is strangely taken with foolish notions, so now has difficulty recognising when a fool speaks or when a clever man tries to fool the naive.

    Cameron’s also trying to redefine Conservatism. Maybe his political party think that the long term destruction of society over which they are presiding is no big deal, but Conservatism has never been about the redefinition of language nor the destruction of society. At it’s worst, Conservatism always seeks to conserve, not destroy.

    Post on NZ Conservative: David Cameron doesn’t know what he stands for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. RRM (9,782 comments) says:

    Leaping Jimmy –

    By allowing gays to use the label of “marriage” you shift the concept from what it has been since time immemorial throughout civilisation, of marriage occuring when people want to have children, to the concept of marriage occuring when people want to have sex.

    So you believe parents are incapable of teaching their children the importance of marriage and providing a stable and committed family life for their own children, unless the state provides laws to enforce this. (By banning any different e.g. gay marriages.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Lucia Maria (2,278 comments) says:

    Leaping Jimmy
    May 14th, 2012 at 12:46 pm

    That’s a really good explanation. Should be attached to a short-cut key as the question answered gets asked a lot.

    RRM,
    Society needs to reinforce what parents teach their children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Scott (1,765 comments) says:

    RRM-it is not my immediate family that would be affected by gay marriage. It is the society to come and the next generations that will be deeply affected.
    Some reasons this will affect families to come –
    it is a radical redefinition of marriage. If this goes through then polygamy will go through. Indeed the prediction is that bestiality will also be legalised at some future date and we can marry our pets. If the only context is “loving relationship” then the sky is the limit.

    It lowers the standing of marriage. Men and men getting married is an abhorrent sight to most of us.

    Marriage has been since the beginning of time. It has always been between a man and a woman. Making it between same-sex couples redefines the whole institution.

    Homosexuals cannot consummate the marriage and produce offspring. Artificial reproduction techniques will be used to design babies.
    Homosexuality is of itself a sin. Taking something sinful such as homosexuality and adding it onto something good such as marriage is an evil act. Evil, by definition, is taking away from the good. Homosexuality takes away from the good of marriage.
    It will lead to further persecution of the church.

    There are strong links between homosexual lobby groups and man boy Love association’s. This will add to the likelihood of children being born and groomed for the sexual abuse and amusement of men “married” to each other.

    Homosexuality can never produce offspring. Offspring are produced only by men and women coming together. We are all conceived through heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is the 100% method of producing the whole human race. There are no exceptions (apart from Jesus and Adam and Eve). Therefore heterosexuality is 100% natural and homosexuality is 100% natural.

    Heterosexuality is essential for the human race to continue. Homosexuality is not essential and not useful in the slightest for the continuation of the human race.

    That’s about 10 points as to why gay marriage is wrong and will radically affect and redefine the family. How about 10 points as to why gay marriage is right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. bringbackdemocracy (423 comments) says:

    Why should 121 limp wristed politicians be allowed to re-define the meaning of the word marriage. Surely this sort of issue should be decided by a binding referendum, like those promoted by Colin Craig and the Conservative party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Gulag1917 (857 comments) says:

    Disagree with the gang of gays and see what love and tolerance you get.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Ryan Sproull (7,095 comments) says:

    Jimmy,

    Marriage is already not solely about children. It is primarily about love and commitment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Paulus (2,602 comments) says:

    If this is the best that Labour can trawl up to get publicity so be it.

    They have no policy, other than this kind of irrelevant crap ?

    Lets National get on with Governing the country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Leaping Jimmy (16,227 comments) says:

    So you believe parents are incapable of teaching their children the importance of marriage and providing a stable and committed family life for their own children, unless the state provides laws to enforce this.

    Try not to assume you know what I think RRM.

    No that is not what I am saying. This is a social engineering issue and social engineering happens all the time.

    Social engineering in post-WWI Germany managed to turn one of the most highly educated and cultered peoples in Europe into what the Germans became and did only 25 years later. That’s an extreme example of how powerful it can be. But to the German people living in it at the time, it wasn’t extreme at all. It’s a boil the frog thing, you see.

    Now if you have a look at Germany, the German people didn’t become anti-semetic because Hitler passed a law, did they? Of course not. It was a prolonged program of propaganda galore and manufactured incidents galore and movies galore and twisted media reports galore taking place over months and years and decades and there were a few laws here and there as well. That is social engineering, RRM and that is how it works. Notice that looking back on it in hindsight it is completely obvious but at the time, it wasn’t. Notice that history records that neither the German people nor the rest of the Europeans were awake to what was happening before their eyes at the time it was happening to them. Notice that Churchill, one of the few who saw it, was characterised as a voice in the wilderness. Notice that this is the same way that people who object to gay marriage are characterised.

    Your question indicates RRM you do not understand the concept of social engineering. I suggest you do some research on it because unless and until you do understand it you will not understand the truth of what I explained above. Getting the marriage label is merely the culmination in a gay rights campaign that has been running for many many generations. It’s the final assault on the summit. It’s not about supporting human rights, it’s about destroying a cherished institution that supports civilisation. That what some people don’t get and that is why they are called useful idiots. Because they are clearly idiots and, to the evil ones behind this campaign, they are clearly useful.

    You might want to reflect whose side you are really on, when you consider that the person who coined that term, was one of the worst mass-murderers the world has ever seen. (Stalin, of course.) You truly are on his side, if you support gay marriage, whether you know it or not. This is because the destruction of the family unit via feminist and gay subversion perpetrated under the guise of human rights is one of the main objectives of the export of Marxist-Leninist philosophy. Why anyone would want to support that, I have no idea, but you are, if you support gay marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Leaping Jimmy (16,227 comments) says:

    Marriage is already not solely about children. It is primarily about love and commitment.

    Ryan, as a social more, it is in people’s minds inextricably linked to family. The institution of marriage equates to the institution of the family. Love and commitment is the enabling mechanism to achieve, it is not the primary purpose of the institution.

    Communists seek to weaken and destroy the family unit because it is the primary support mechanism for the individual in society and communists of course wish to make the govt to be that mechanism. This is the whole point of communism, that is why they pay so much attention to the family unit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Ryan Sproull (7,095 comments) says:

    RRM-it is not my immediate family that would be affected by gay marriage. It is the society to come and the next generations that will be deeply affected.
    Some reasons this will affect families to come –
    it is a radical redefinition of marriage. If this goes through then polygamy will go through. Indeed the prediction is that bestiality will also be legalised at some future date and we can marry our pets. If the only context is “loving relationship” then the sky is the limit.

    Slippery slope fallacy. Also, the context is not just “loving relationship”, it is “loving relationship between consenting adults”.

    It lowers the standing of marriage. Men and men getting married is an abhorrent sight to most of us.

    Even if it was abhorrent to everyone in the country but two people, that would not give those four million people the right to discriminate against the consentual love of those two adults.

    Marriage has been since the beginning of time. It has always been between a man and a woman. Making it between same-sex couples redefines the whole institution.

    Check your Bible. Marriage has changed plenty – between men and many women, between women and many men, etc. Throughout the world, marriage has always been a changing phenomenon. In the West, it has become about love and commitment between consenting adults – same-sex couples do not redefine that at all.

    Homosexuals cannot consummate the marriage and produce offspring. Artificial reproduction techniques will be used to design babies.

    Maybe. Probably surrogacy and adoption, more likely. And some same-sex couples already have children. And plenty of heterosexual couples can’t produce offspring. Secondary to the main point of marriage: love and commitment between consenting adults.

    Homosexuality is of itself a sin. Taking something sinful such as homosexuality and adding it onto something good such as marriage is an evil act. Evil, by definition, is taking away from the good. Homosexuality takes away from the good of marriage.

    It is not the state’s place to enforce one religion on everyone (even if it’s yours!)

    It will lead to further persecution of the church.

    Depends on what you mean by persecution. People saying the (your?) church is wrong – sure, but that’s already happening, and isn’t going to stop. Same goes for everyone else’s religions, or lack thereof.

    There are strong links between homosexual lobby groups and man boy Love association’s. This will add to the likelihood of children being born and groomed for the sexual abuse and amusement of men “married” to each other.

    Slippery slope fallacy again. Spurious evidential claims. And child sexual abuse and grooming is already illegal.

    Homosexuality can never produce offspring. Offspring are produced only by men and women coming together. We are all conceived through heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is the 100% method of producing the whole human race. There are no exceptions (apart from Jesus and Adam and Eve). Therefore heterosexuality is 100% natural and homosexuality is 100% natural.

    Assuming you meant “homosexuality is 100% unnatural”. The potential for an activity to produce children is not an indicator of whether or not that activity should be discriminated against by the state. And recognising the equal rights of same-sex adult couples is not going to reduce the number of heterosexuals out there having kids.

    Heterosexuality is essential for the human race to continue. Homosexuality is not essential and not useful in the slightest for the continuation of the human race.

    Irrelevant. Also, there’s more to life than having kids. Going to church is not essential or useful for the continuation of the human race (hell, requiring marriage before reproduction is quite an impediment to reproduction). Do you really want the human race to be reduced to doing nothing but having kids?

    That’s about 10 points as to why gay marriage is wrong and will radically affect and redefine the family. How about 10 points as to why gay marriage is right?

    Whether or not gay marriage is morally right is not the question here. The question is whether or not it is right for the state to discriminate against the loving commitments of some consenting adults and not others – primarily based on one or two religions’ moral stances on the matter.

    And the answer is: the state has no business enforcing some people’s religions (or even some people’s personal tastes) on everyone.

    If you don’t think same-sex marriage is okay, don’t get married to another man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Ryan Sproull (7,095 comments) says:

    Ryan, as a social more, it is in people’s minds inextricably linked to family. The institution of marriage equates to the institution of the family. Love and commitment is the enabling mechanism to achieve, it is not the primary purpose of the institution.

    Jimmy, do you think that infertile heterosexual couples should be able to legally marry?

    Communists seek to weaken and destroy the family unit because it is the primary support mechanism for the individual in society and communists of course wish to make the govt to be that mechanism. This is the whole point of communism, that is why they pay so much attention to the family unit.

    This is actually the opposite of state communism – this is a demand for the state to get out of restricting personal freedom.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. brijo247 (3 comments) says:

    What will happen if we legislate to allow gay marriage:
    1. We treat every individual equally under the law
    2. Gay couples will get married.

    That is all. The utter bullshit about the sanctity of marriage is just that. If you can;t provide a convincing argument about your views of marriage to your kids or anyone else either your argument is flawed/stupid or a mixture of both.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. RRM (9,782 comments) says:

    That’s about 10 points as to why gay marriage is wrong and will radically affect and redefine the family. How about 10 points as to why gay marriage is right?

    I’m not sure I can find ten, but here are a few:

    (1)
    The State has no business picking and choosing which relationships between free adults it accords rights & recognition to, and which it does not.

    (2)
    Some gay couples are better parents than some straight couples. Therefore it seems crazy to legislate against families with gay parents.

    (3)
    Some straight couples conceive children using IVF technology who would otherwise be incapable of conception, and no-one complains about this so IVF technology should not be a problem when used by gay couples.

    (4)
    No one is seriously proposing legalising rape or pedophilia (“man-boy-love”), get your hand off it.

    (5)
    No-one is seriously proposing legalising bestiality, again get your hand off it.

    (6)
    You are correct heterosexuality is essential for the continuation of the human race. Gay marriage does not prevent the reproduction of heterosexual couples, so what is the problem?

    (7)
    You are correct homosexuality does not produce children.
    Spinsterhood, bachelorhood, contraception and masturbation do not produce children either, should we ban these also?

    Sorry, I only got 7…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Leaping Jimmy (16,227 comments) says:

    Jimmy, do you think that infertile heterosexual couples should be able to legally marry?

    Ryan I explained above in 12:46 this is about a social more which is a collective concept shared by all across society. The fact that childless marriages occur now and then is quite irrelevant to consideration of what marriage actually is, as a social more.

    This is actually the opposite of state communism – this is a demand for the state to get out of restricting personal freedom

    Ryan first you create the vacuum then you fill it with whatever you wish to fill it with. First you have to create the vacuum, which is what they are creating by destroying the family unit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. RRM (9,782 comments) says:

    which is what they are creating by destroying the family unit.

    Who’s destroying the family unit, and in what way?

    Your family is strong enough to be unaffected by the mere existence of gay couples, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Socrates (84 comments) says:

    It’s amusing that Redbaiter and his ilk are both winning the argument and losing it at the same time.

    The argument I hear more and more from the next generation is; banning gay marriage is an unwarranted intrusion in the private lives of people and the state should get out of interfering in people’s lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Ryan Sproull (7,095 comments) says:

    Ryan I explained above in 12:46 this is about a social more which is a collective concept shared by all across society. The fact that childless marriages occur now and then is quite irrelevant to consideration of what marriage actually is, as a social more.

    The social more is focused on love and commitment, as far as I can see. Social mores change too.

    Ryan first you create the vacuum then you fill it with whatever you wish to fill it with. First you have to create the vacuum, which is what they are creating by destroying the family unit.

    Again, slippery slope fallacy. States dictating how consenting adults must arrange their personal lives is bad. Support for marriage equality is opposition to states dictating how consenting adults must arrange their personal lives. Resistance against some imagined state-mandated family restructuring would also be opposition to states dictating how consenting adults must arrange their personal lives.

    Let’s say you oppose taxation. If you said, “Taxes should be lower – look at how taxes are spent on stupid art programmes,” could I really say, “You just want taxes to be lowered to create a vacuum, so that they can be raised again later to support public transport”? You’d say, “What? Are you crazy? No, I want taxes to be lowered!”

    Same thing here. I say, “The state shouldn’t be telling people how to live.” You say, “Oh, you just want them to stop telling people how to live now so that later on the state can start telling people how to live another way.” I say, “What? Are you crazy? No, I want the state to stop telling people how to live!”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Chthoniid (2,035 comments) says:

    Please, if your religion claims that people are a special divine creation (i.e. we’re more closely related to dust than other apes) it may make sense to say homosexuality is against your religion. It makes no sense to claim that homosexuality is unnatural when it’s a tenet of your faith we’re not natural to begin with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Pete George (23,434 comments) says:

    Paulus, this is the sort of legislation that opposition parties stand a chance of getting through parliament, so that’s where it’s best to be initiated from. They have no show of progressing legislation that has budget implications.

    alex – I think it wil be far less of an issue here, with a bit of luck the bill will be drawn and dealt with without too much fuss. It’s far more likely to be a major sideshow in a far more tradition orientated US in election year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Socrates (84 comments) says:

    “Marriage has been since the beginning of time. It has always been between a man and a woman. Making it between same-sex couples redefines the whole institution.”

    Actually no – In a 1998 survey of over 1000 societies by the University of Wisconsin, just 186 were monogamous. Some 453 had occasional polygyny [men marrying multiple partners] and in another 588 it was quite common.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    Obamakey

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Leaping Jimmy (16,227 comments) says:

    Who’s destroying the family unit, and in what way? Your family is strong enough to be unaffected by the mere existence of gay couples, right?

    RRM, as I said above, you don’t seem to understand how social engineering works. I’ll try one last time to explain it to you. If you still don’t get it, don’t expect any further elucidations from me, just research the subject on your own, it’s quite easy to find.

    This is all about social mores. A social more is:
    1. The accepted traditional customs and usages of a particular social group.
    2. Moral attitudes.
    3. Manners; ways.

    When discussing a social more RRM, we are talking about the generalised majority view. It doesn’t matter if not all families are happy families and it doesn’t matter if some marriages are childless. None of these things matter. We are talking about the generalised perspective. That is what a more is. Sometimes lefties appear to have difficulty with the concept of a more because it seems to make them think it’s all about stereotyping and that’s why you come up with counter-examples to the norm like childless marriage. If that’s the case with you, I suggest you get over that because all of those counter-examples are all quite irrelevant to the concept of what we are talking about.

    So: as a social more, marriage equates inextricably to family, in people’s minds. In other words, when people think of the institution of marriage, their minds automatically by pavlovian association conjure up the institution of the family. The objective of the communists is to break that pavlovian association of marriage = family in people’s minds and the way they are trying to do that is by changing the concept to make marriage now equate to sex, in people’s minds. This may not happen for a few generations to come, but that’s OK, that’s the plan, and they are patient and they can wait.

    The reason they want to do this is because one’s family is the most powerful support structure an individual can have. When I say powerful I mean it’s the most reliable the most loving, etc. It’s the thing we turn to first, in our moments of need. This has always been true across all societies.

    Commies hate this because their philosophy states that the govt is the thing to which people should turn to first in their moments of need. Their whole philosophy of govt is built around emplacing the govt in people’s minds as this sort of structure.

    Of course this is fucking nuts. Of course it is. It’s not only nuts, it’s clearly evil. However this doesn’t matter to the commies, this is what they want and aim to do and that is what they are doing here.

    So by making marriage = sex in people’s minds, people will eventually consider marriage to be a merely transient event which naturally happens multiple times in ones life and which may or may not result in children which is a side-effect anyway because in people’s minds in several generations time, the whole marriage thing is about sex, not family. So people may have 4-5 marriages in their lifetimes and they may have several children but rather than those children having the same father it is likely the new family with be a mother with several children each to different fathers and the current partner is father to none of them. That is what the commies want the new “family” to become, several generations down the track.

    Compare that to what people have as their social more “family” today and you can see it’s not going to be a healthy society in fact it is intended to be dysfunctional precisely because the resulting dysfunctions will require the individuals to demand a strong govt to step in because they cannot rely on their “family,” whatever that is, the word’s increasingly fallen into disuse over the years.

    If you think all this is fantastic RRM then re-read the examples from history I gave you above and bear in mind those examples actually really truly did happen, also read up on what the commies believe and how they operate: googling the Frankfurt School is not a bad place to start. Also bear in mind that you probably don’t really understand social engineering at least from your questions you don’t seem to, therefore until you do, you probably aren’t very well equipped to make any judgement on whether or not what I’ve just outlined is likely to happen or not, are you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. slightlyrighty (2,471 comments) says:

    I love these people who talk about marriage since the beginning of time, and “the concept from what it has been since time immemorial”

    Lets look at that for a bit.

    Doctrine stated that people refrain from sex before marriage, and that the wife was the property of the husband, as were the daughters until married, when they became the property of the new husband.

    Under the common law of England, an unmarried woman could own property, make a contract, or sue and be sued. But a married woman, defined as being one with her husband, gave up her name, and virtually all her property came under her husband’s control.

    Inter-racial marriage was only legalised at a federal level in the US in 1967. Of course it was prohibited as being outside the definition of marriage. In case after case, legislation prohibiting racial inter-marriage was justified as unbending tradition rooting in received natural law.” 1For example, in 1869, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that:

    “…moral or social equality between the different races…does not in fact exist, and never can. The God of nature made it otherwise, and no human law can produce it, and no human tribunal can enforce it. There are gradations and classes throughout the universe. From the tallest archangel in Heaven, down to the meanest reptile on earth, moral and social inequalities exist, and must continue to exist throughout all eternity.”

    The fact that many chose to hold onto traditional marriage, while refusing to acknowledge that the institution of marriage has been evolving away from the strict definition and traditions, does not lend weight to their arguement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Leaping Jimmy (16,227 comments) says:

    I love these people who talk about marriage since the beginning of time, and “the concept from what it has been since time immemorial”

    The way I refer to it sr is the association between marriage and family. Whatever you might consider as to what consitutes a ‘quality’ marriage, is different and separate to that association. And it’s that association that the commies want to break.

    So your point is irrelevant, in terms of my arguments, anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Ryan Sproull (7,095 comments) says:

    So by making marriage = sex in people’s minds, people will eventually consider marriage to be a merely transient event which naturally happens multiple times in ones life and which may or may not result in children which is a side-effect anyway because in people’s minds in several generations time, the whole marriage thing is about sex, not family. So people may have 4-5 marriages in their lifetimes and they may have several children but rather than those children having the same father it is likely the new family with be a mother with several children each to different fathers and the current partner is father to none of them. That is what the commies want the new “family” to become, several generations down the track.

    Jimmy, again, marriage is about love and commitment, not sex. People can, and do, have plenty of sex without marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. RRM (9,782 comments) says:

    That is what the commies want the new “family” to become, several generations down the track.

    Wow. Just wow.

    [And thanks for your historical examples, I did read those and it all makes sense now. People advocating for gay marriage are Adolph Hitler... ]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Leaping Jimmy (16,227 comments) says:

    Ryan again, this is about the social more. It is about what people think of when the concept of “marriage” comes into their minds.

    Love and commitment may well come into their minds as being attibutes of marriage, but what do they also think of? That’s right, family. Children. Mum, dad and kids. If you want to have children, you get married. This same association applies across cultures and civilsations: it applies in asian cultures, indian culture, european cultures, african cultures, arabic cultures.

    The association between children and marriage has been weakened over the last few generations in western cultures and the timing of this directly correlates to the rise of feminism. Isn’t that interesting. Since feminism has been spreading its message since the 60’s in western cultures, the social more inextricably linking marriage and children has been weakened. It hasn’t disappeared, but it has changed, so you these days in western cultures get quite a few people who have children outside of marriage. They are still the minority by a long shot, but there are say, 10% of western couples who do this. Oddly, this same thing regarding the social more hasn’t happened in other cultures where feminism hasn’t been spreading its messages. Isn’t that odd. So in asian, indian, african and arabic cultures the attitude between getting married if you want to have kids is pretty much still 100%. How peculiar. Go figure.

    But if we in the western cultures start equating gay relationships with the concept of marriage (which = family), then this gives a huge boost to the collective belief that marriage isn’t about kids. This is because, a gay couple is a couple by definition, because of sex. They are not a couple who are a couple because they wish to procreate. They are a couple who are a couple because they wish to have sex. (Please don’t say not all gays have sex, as I’ve explained lots of times above, this is about mores, and mores are generalised attitudes.)

    So I hope you can see why this is not about rights, this is about how people work, in social structures. That is not always rational, it is not always “just” but it does have certain rules it follows as to how those thoughts change and come about. And that is what gay activists are hoping people don’t understand, when they decide to vote for gay marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Dazzaman (1,138 comments) says:

    He’ll lose my vote if it happens. Craig, if he ever becomes a realistic option, or NZ First will be the only avenues for conservatives.

    Pandering to the gaggle of gays like the Helenites with the last mob. Way to underestimate the small town & country vote John…nice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Scott (1,765 comments) says:

    Yes I would agree with you Dazzaman- I would happily have voted in the next election for John Key. Now I will vote for someone else. One cannot hunt with the hounds and run with the hares. John cannot go to a Christian rally on Monday and a gay rights mardi gras on Tuesday. He appears to want to please everyone.

    Hopefully he will have a big drop in the polls and revise his views. This appears to be happening in Britain with David Cameron.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Scott (1,765 comments) says:

    “The State has no business picking and choosing which relationships between free adults it accords rights & recognition to, and which it does not.”

    This is where I so disagree with RRM. Marriage has been about mum and dad and the kids for ever and ever. The state gave special rights to married couples as a foundation of society where kids will be nurtured best. Now all that is going. All the social indicators are in the wrong direction. And now we want to destroy marriage by making it between men and men when it never has been before.

    This is an evil day for our country and as our nation declines further it will be because of legislation like this. Where a government is radically redefining what has been a shared understanding of marriage. This is state interference and they should cease forthwith.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Ryan Sproull (7,095 comments) says:

    So I hope you can see why this is not about rights, this is about how people work, in social structures. That is not always rational, it is not always “just” but it does have certain rules it follows as to how those thoughts change and come about. And that is what gay activists are hoping people don’t understand, when they decide to vote for gay marriage.

    I think I can see why you see it that way, but to me and most people I know, marriage is not about having kids, not primarily. I know some, though not many, heterosexual couples who have no plans to have children ever. I don’t know people who would raise their eyebrows at that. The prevalent attitude, the social more, is that marriage is about love and commitment. I’m 32 and most of my social circles are within 10 years on either side of that, so maybe it’s an age thing.

    Just because marriage isn’t primarily about having kids doesn’t mean that people are going to stop having kids, though. As I said, the attitude among my social circles is that marriage is about love and commitment rather than having kids – but those social circles include an awful lot of couples with kids.

    I think you’re making an unwarranted leap in saying that if marriage isn’t primarily about having kids then people will stop having kids.

    And even if I thought that was the case, I also don’t agree with your social engineering: the idea that the state should be encouraging a particular way of people organising their personal lives so as to achieve some state-wide goal of having lots of kids. The state has no place trying to engineer people into having children-focused heterosexual relationships – it’s none of the state’s business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Griff (7,366 comments) says:

    Fundies don’t argue they preach
    No one is taking any thing away from family or the institution of marriage this bill is designed to widen and add to the institution
    You can tell by the number of times that sodomy or man on man has been mentioned by the f undies that their view point is no more than hate of male homosexuals, hate that is a sin in gods eyes
    Marriage would encourage more stable relationships within the male gay community And also allow the institution to include female homosexuals who with the aid of a turkey baster and a male friend can easily reproduce

    I hope all you f undies do vote CCCP and it all turns out just as righteous as the last Cristian party proved to be.Kiddy fiddly f undies political parties are destined to fail in this country because sooner or later their hypocrisy will be exposed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Pete George (23,434 comments) says:

    ‏ @felixmarwick
    PM says he doesn’t know how he’d vote at a 3rd reading of a gay marriage bill

    If it gets that far that shouldn’t matter much, PM is only 1/121 of the vote, it’s up to the rest of the MPs equally.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Leaping Jimmy (16,227 comments) says:

    I think I can see why you see it that way, but to me and most people I know, marriage is not about having kids, not primarily.

    Ryan a social more is not a conscious rationalisation. It is the sum of the collective sub-consciousness within a society on a given topic.

    I guarantee if you asked everyone in the entire country to do a word-association between ‘marriage’ and other words including ‘family,’ that family would come out if not at the top, at near the top, together with words such as you have mentioned: ‘love’ and ‘commitment’ etc.

    Now I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. What I’m saying is: commies wish to attack the specific association that marriage has, with family. I’m not saying, lest you misunderstand, that this means therefore, that marriage is associated only with the word ‘family.’ I’m saying, that particular association is what the commies are interested in, for abovementioned reasons.

    I also don’t agree with your social engineering

    Are you suggesting by giving gays the label of marriage we thereby avoid state interference in people’s lives? So what value is Rousseau’s Social Contract, at all? Why don’t we just revert to anarchy? Is that what you’re suggesting? Surely not.

    I think you’re making an unwarranted leap in saying that if marriage isn’t primarily about having kids then people will stop having kids.

    If you think I’m saying anything of the sort you have completely misunderstood everything I’ve said here today. I am not trying to influence people Ryan. I am explaining how people are or might be, influenced. If you can’t discern the difference I’m very disappointed in your perspicacity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Leaping Jimmy (16,227 comments) says:

    No one is taking any thing away from family or the institution of marriage this bill is designed to widen and add to the institution

    No it’s designed to destroy it, as detailed above since this morning, Griff. What about any of that, don’t you understand?

    You can tell by the number of times that sodomy or man on man has been mentioned by the f undies that their view point is no more than hate of male homosexuals, hate that is a sin in gods eyes

    Griff given I haven’t mentioned any of that at all in any way, where does this leave me, in your opinion, hate-wise?

    Marriage would encourage more stable relationships within the male gay community And also allow the institution to include female homosexuals who with the aid of a turkey baster and a male friend can easily reproduce

    Do you think the turkey baster should be included as a “marriage partner” and therefore a legal guardian in the amended Marriage Act Griff, or is that going a bit too far?

    I hope all you f undies do vote CCCP and it all turns out just as righteous as the last Cristian party proved to be.Kiddy fiddly f undies political parties are destined to fail in this country because sooner or later their hypocrisy will be exposed.

    What happens Griff if I don’t support the Colin Craig party but I’ve thought up my opposition to gay marriage all by myself? How does it work then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. thedavincimode (6,617 comments) says:

    1. Key said he would vote for it at the first reading: “let’s have the debate” he said. Sounds fair.

    2. We traditionally use the term “marriage” in a heterosexual context, but if the god-bothering fraternity want to lay claim to that term then the rest of us need to re-define what we’re going to call it. Personally, I’m more interested in re-claiming the “gay” word for general use.

    3. If the bill is concerned with establishing equal rights for homos under the law, where is the problem?

    I’m with RRM and brijo on this. And as spiderman put it:

    It makes no sense to claim that homosexuality is unnatural when it’s a tenet of your faith we’re not natural to begin with.

    I know you god-botherers get a bit of a rarking up from time to time, not necessarily fairly, and its something I avoid doing because unlike the lazy lying bludger, you’re entitled to your view. But you do bring a lot of it on yourselves. In this instance, all you’re doing is promoting bigotry in trying to deny equal rights before the law.

    If your real beef is just the “marriage” word, then say so; but if you’re going to raise your colours on point, at least identify whether you are against equal rights and into the kind of facile spiteful bigotry that you can expect from Lee666 and Russell Fletcher. This will enable appropriate targeting and avoid unnecessary cluttering of the “debate” with the G*d issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Ryan Sproull (7,095 comments) says:

    Ryan a social more is not a conscious rationalisation. It is the sum of the collective sub-consciousness within a society on a given topic.

    Yes, and I’m expressing the collective sub-consciousness of the society I live in.

    I guarantee if you asked everyone in the entire country to do a word-association between ‘marriage’ and other words including ‘family,’ that family would come out if not at the top, at near the top, together with words such as you have mentioned: ‘love’ and ‘commitment’ etc.

    I certainly believe that if you asked everyone you knew, that’s what they’d say. I’m telling you that I believe that if I asked everyone I know, they wouldn’t include having children as essential to the meaning of marriage.

    Now I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. What I’m saying is: commies wish to attack the specific association that marriage has, with family. I’m not saying, lest you misunderstand, that this means therefore, that marriage is associated only with the word ‘family.’ I’m saying, that particular association is what the commies are interested in, for abovementioned reasons.

    It seems paranoid to me to see a move for liberty and equality as part of an agenda to undermine liberty at a later date.

    Are you suggesting by giving gays the label of marriage we thereby avoid state interference in people’s lives? So what value is Rousseau’s Social Contract, at all? Why don’t we just revert to anarchy? Is that what you’re suggesting? Surely not.

    I would love for our society to graduate to anarchy, but in this case I am saying that one particular way the state is interfering with people’s lives (treating gay couples differently) could be done away with. I’ve stated in other threads that I would ideally like the state to have nothing to do with marriage whatsoever.

    If you think I’m saying anything of the sort you have completely misunderstood everything I’ve said here today. I am not trying to influence people Ryan. I am explaining how people are or might be, influenced. If you can’t discern the difference I’m very disappointed in your perspicacity.

    I may have misread you. I thought you were concerned that society’s move away from seeing child-bearing as essential to marriage would mean there would be fewer children. You’re instead saying that… society’s move away from seeing child-bearing as essential to marriage paves the way for Marxist state-raised children planning? Apologies if that’s not what you were saying.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Griff (7,366 comments) says:

    LJ
    understand that the bucket of gas I chucked was in no way directed at you
    You have an exemption to all the tirades I post
    at least you are a free thinker and not constricted by the priest that leads you congregation and I could not see you voting for CCCP as at hart you are far to liberal to be seduced by his nonsense

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

    Scott:Marriage has been since the beginning of time. It has always been between a man and a woman. Making it between same-sex couples redefines the whole institution

    You need to learn some history. There have been all sorts of definitions of marriage throughout he ages, including polygynous and polyandrous and gay marriages.

    Therefore heterosexuality is 100% natural and homosexuality is 100% natural.

    And yet homosexuality occurs in animals. It is in fact natural.

    Heterosexuality is essential for the human race to continue. Homosexuality is not essential and not useful in the slightest for the continuation of the human race.

    There are plenty of things that aren’t essential to the continuation of the human race.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. RRM (9,782 comments) says:

    Leaping Jimmy:

    By allowing gays to use the label of “marriage” you shift the concept from what it has been since time immemorial throughout civilisation, of marriage occuring when people want to have children, to the concept of marriage occuring when people want to have sex.

    Incorrect – plenty of gay couples intend to have children. To say it is making marriage about sex not children is therefore wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. UpandComer (528 comments) says:

    Gay marriage is different here. Through Civil unions gay individuals already have equal rights with everyone else. I am not against gay marriage if 95% of the country is in support of it at all. I just question why it is necessary. Gays hate christianity anyway, with some justification given christian stances on their sexuality, so why would the want to engage in what is a religious tradition and sacrament when they have civil unions?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Leaping Jimmy (16,227 comments) says:

    Just to underline the importance of family life to the individual, have a look at this post, which is in reference to the Krokodil drug sweeping Russia. This drug literally rots people’s flesh from their bones within months, yet they don’t seek treatment, in case that means they have to stop taking it. This quote is one of the comments in response and it got 639 likes. I only post this to emphasize the point, the family unit is critical, if we mess with it today, this sort of problem and no doubt others much, much worse, is what we risk exposing ourselves to, as a society, decades down the track.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/krokodil-the-drug-that-eats-junkies-2300787.html

    I feel compelled to post. I do not know much about Russia, however, my experience is as a heroin addict who has not taken any addictive substances for almost 2 decades and who has no desire to. My own personal understanding of addiction is everything that people have said, whether I agree or not. But what is interesting is that addiction is a global epidemic which has at it’s roots a few fundamental issues, in my opinion:
    Addiction is a reaction to a lack of ‘spirituality’ in peoples life…I am not talking about ‘God’ nor about becoming a Buddah… Just a base feeling of ‘being’ OK with who you are and where you are and what you have.
    Family life plays an integral part in creation of peoples world view.
    Society is paramount in the addiction epidemic. Our values are completely distorted, mine too.
    Drugs or alcohol are not necessarily the problem it is a lot more to do with the environment. There are many forms of addiction available for people to act out with, drugs, alcohol, gambling (huge), sex (huge), money, power (just look at the world) etc etc….

    A solution to the problem… I have NO idea. But my world view has substantially changed over the years and I have faced my own demons to achieve a peaceful place within myself. One thing…seeing people as ‘addicts’ only exasperates the problem. Whether you like it or not, the lowest of the lowest addicts ARE people and we are all people. I am guilty of judging people too but I try not to.

    A solution to the problem… well, he may have “no idea” but one thing is for sure, isn’t it. The weakening of the family unit, is NOT a positive move forward, is it. And when its done for no reason at all: i.e. when gays have everything else, but for the label, why do you want to vote for it, ever?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Ryan Sproull (7,095 comments) says:

    Gay marriage is different here. Through Civil unions gay individuals already have equal rights with everyone else. I am not against gay marriage if 95% of the country is in support of it at all. I just question why it is necessary. Gays hate christianity anyway, with some justification given christian stances on their sexuality, so why would the want to engage in what is a religious tradition and sacrament when they have civil unions?

    Marriage predates Christianity and exists in non-Christian-related cultures, U&C, and even if marriage was a purely Christian institution – if it’s a religious institution, it has no place in the state.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Leaping Jimmy (16,227 comments) says:

    Incorrect – plenty of gay couples intend to have children. To say it is making marriage about sex not children is therefore wrong.

    Yes well they can intend all they like RRM but there is a small matter of biology coming into play here, isn’t there. Crikey.

    So what IS a gay couple about, if not sex? Basically? Strip it all away, RRM. Go on. What is the naked gay couple all about?

    Obvious, isn’t it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Ryan Sproull (7,095 comments) says:

    A solution to the problem… well, he may have “no idea” but one thing is for sure, isn’t it. The weakening of the family unit, is NOT a positive move forward, is it. And when its done for no reason at all: i.e. when gays have everything else, but for the label, why do you want to vote for it, ever?

    If it’s such a small thing, why do you care so much?

    Imagine if interracial couples had civil unions with identical rights to marriage, except the recognition of their commitments as “marriage’. Would you think them petty to demand equal recognition?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Ryan Sproull (7,095 comments) says:

    Yes well they can intend all they like RRM but there is a small matter of biology coming into play here, isn’t there. Crikey.

    So what IS a gay couple about, if not sex? Basically? Strip it all away, RRM. Go on. What is the naked gay couple all about?

    Obvious, isn’t it.

    Love and commitment. It is possible to have sex without being married (or civil-unioned), you know. If it was all about sex, this wouldn’t be an issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Leaping Jimmy (16,227 comments) says:

    Griff, thanks for the clarification. I’ll bear this in mind in future threads as well as an operating assumption. I had wondered, you’re not usually like that, I was thinking to myself….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. RRM (9,782 comments) says:

    Showing your ignorance now, LJ.

    Plenty of gay couples have children. And they have to jump thru all sorts of hoops to make it happen, it can never be an accident as it can for straight couples.

    So I would expect any gay parents out there to be every bit as committed to their families as any straight parents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. thedavincimode (6,617 comments) says:

    Gays hate christianity anyway, with some justification given christian stances on their sexuality, so why would the want to engage in what is a religious tradition and sacrament when they have civil unions?

    Hmm. I guess those churches that accept homos aren’t really xtian. But that accords with the fact that there is indeed only one true Church: The Holy Roman Kiddy Fiddler Church.

    Situation update/late edit/memo to self: add upandcomer to bare-faced bigot list comprising lee666 and Russell Fletcher.

    BTW: my understanding is that they don’t have equality before the law in all respects. That, by all accounts, is the point of the Bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Andrei (2,547 comments) says:

    Has everybody gone insane?

    http://www.quid-deinde.falfn.com/page.php?post=P_1336964816

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. RRM (9,782 comments) says:

    Meanwhile, I’m counting the number of childless married straight couples I know personally.
    The fingers of both hands aren’t enough.

    So if some gay marriage is just about sex, then it seems some straight marriage is too… :-P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. wat dabney (3,708 comments) says:

    Gay marriage supporters by definition attack and undermine the standing of the family unit as a social more in people’s minds by reducing the social more of “marriage” to being about sex, when it is currently about children…The fact that some people never have children, is irrelevent.

    Brilliant, Jimmy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Michael Mckee (1,091 comments) says:

    Manolo (6,419) Says:
    May 14th, 2012 at 12:08 pm

    on to it in one.
    Well Done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Leaping Jimmy (16,227 comments) says:

    If it’s such a small thing, why do you care so much?

    It’s not a small thing to them, Ryan. How come the entire western community is treating it as a global issue now? You still think it’s a small thing? And seriously? We’re talking about a label, aren’t we. Yes, we are.

    We are talking about the entire western community – the US, the EU, NZ, Australia, Canada, all having civil unions, being up in arms, about a SIMPLE WORD.

    Now given we’re in the midst of the biggest economic crisis since 1929, a small thing called the war on terror and various other small “brushfires” like Fukushima which could result in a nuclear meltdown which poisons the entire world, how come Ryan, this issue is getting headlines in the western world? Is it coordinated in any way? How could that be? If not, how come it’s all come about all at the same time? Is it just by majic? Would be good to hear your opinion on that.

    I have one as well of course, but would be good to hear yours, first.

    Imagine if interracial couples had civil unions with identical rights to marriage, except the recognition of their commitments as “marriage’. Would you think them petty to demand equal recognition?

    I’m disappointed you allude to me being discriminating Ryan given my rationales above. It’s as if you have deliberately chosen to misunderstand everything I’ve said and deliberately obfuscate. This is quite beneath you, in my experience. Please either withdraw and apologise for that comment, or point me specifically to where anything I’ve said today could be reasonably interpreted as read in the way you allege.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. thedavincimode (6,617 comments) says:

    LJ

    You’re losing it. If your marriage was about having children only, then I can understand why. But if it was about the missus first and foremost, and children were a secondary desire and consequence, then how does that over-ride the reason you got together in the first place? If you had been tested beforehand and one of you couldn’t have had kids, would that have been it? All over rover?

    If so, then I can understand your position. If not, then why would you deny the same emotion and desire for commitment to others because of their sexual orientation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. wat dabney (3,708 comments) says:

    ‘In the words of Judge Bazile, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” Examples of this specious reasoning still echo in Biblical Literalist and Creationist circles.’

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States

    And exactly the same level of specious bigotry is on display here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Dick Prebble (60 comments) says:

    People want a Prime Minister who doesn’t target the weak, but valiantly seeks to protect them. As much as I believe John Key is a soft-cock Prime Minister who can’t do shit about the economy, that’s the biggest difference between Christians and non-Christians. Christians are always attacking other members of society, basically pointing out their sins and trying to get them to change who they are through force or threat of Hellfire.

    When there are homosexuals in society, you’d think that for support the first place they would turn to is the Church, because a Church is supposed to be a place where people can feel loved and accepted. No way. Everyone knows from experience that attending Church only results in condemnation and judgment – the perfect example is shown in the comments by the Christians on this blog. Never once have they ever said anything supportive towards minorities – they are often just here to obsessively argue against gay marriage as if it’s the biggest threat to life itself. Back in the old days Christians were known for charities and missionaries. Now they’re just a group of angry old blog readers who froth at the mouth at the suggestion that Jesus was gay.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Ryan Sproull (7,095 comments) says:

    It’s not a small thing to them, Ryan. How come the entire western community is treating it as a global issue now? You still think it’s a small thing? And seriously? We’re talking about a label, aren’t we. Yes, we are.

    We are talking about the entire western community – the US, the EU, NZ, Australia, Canada, all having civil unions, being up in arms, about a SIMPLE WORD.

    Yeah, it’s important to them. And apparently important enough to you to spend a lot of time opposing a change.

    Now given we’re in the midst of the biggest economic crisis since 1929, a small thing called the war on terror and various other small “brushfires” like Fukushima which could result in a nuclear meltdown which poisons the entire world, how come Ryan, this issue is getting headlines in the western world? Is it coordinated in any way? How could that be? If not, how come it’s all come about all at the same time? Is it just by majic? Would be good to hear your opinion on that.

    Newsmedia follows each other’s leads. Controversy sells air time, papers and ad space. If there wasn’t any opposition to marriage equality, it would get no air time.

    I’m disappointed you allude to me being discriminating Ryan given my rationales above. It’s as if you have deliberately chosen to misunderstand everything I’ve said and deliberately obfuscate. This is quite beneath you, in my experience. Please either withdraw and apologise for that comment, or point me specifically to where anything I’ve said today could be reasonably interpreted as read in the way you allege.

    I’m not alleging that you’re racist. I’m answering your question, which you’ve repeated: “Why do they care so much? It’s just a word!”

    If you can understand why interracial couples would want their loving life-long commitments to each other to be called “marriage” just like everyone else’s, you should be able to answer your own question. This is why people want gay couples to be considered marriage by the state – the same reason interracial couples would, or any other kind of couples of consenting adults would, if they were singled out to be denied that recognition.

    There’s no question that you’re being discriminatory. You are simply offering some argument in favour of that discrimination. I do not find your argument compelling. I disagree with several of your premises and some of how you use those premises to support your conclusion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Leaping Jimmy (16,227 comments) says:

    There’s no question that you’re being discriminatory.

    Just as there is no argument you, by your position, are destroying the family unit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I still maintain a solution that should satisfy everyone would be for the government to repeal any legislation that regulates personal relationships between consenting adults. Marriage should be private business only.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. wat dabney (3,708 comments) says:

    mm,

    Surely we should all have to ask Jimmy’s permission first?

    That is effectively what he’s saying.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Fletch (6,253 comments) says:

    The future is young,liberal and tolerant.

    “tolerant”? You’re kidding right?
    Tolerant of everything, apart from that with which they disagree.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Leaping Jimmy (16,227 comments) says:

    Surely we should all have to ask Jimmy’s permission first? That is effectively what he’s saying.

    Not quite wat. I’ve been saying above that if you support giving gays the opportunity to use the label of marriage in a way that means they will be able to equate the relationship of 2 men or 2 women to a relationship of a man and a woman, then society will in fact suffer very badly indeed and severe consequences will flow therefrom.

    I have explained above what those consequences will be and why they will arise and if you chose to go ahead anyway, be it on your own heads, as far as I’m concerned.

    I point out the family unit dates back thousands of years and has worked perfectly well to date, and this change is recent, not the other way round. i.e. it is not, as many idiots believe: “pwogwessive.”

    It’s a shame many fathers and mothers are so profoundly ignorant and/or confused they do not know the literal hell they are assigning their children to experience by their acquisence on this decision.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. thedavincimode (6,617 comments) says:

    milkymould

    Does that actually do it? I recall that there are a number of laws that deny equality on the basis that the definition of marriage is limited in scope to exclude same sex relationships. Adoption for example.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Fletch (6,253 comments) says:

    There really is no such thing as a sexual “orientation”. It is all political.

    Until 1986, homosexuality was universally defined as same-gender sexual conduct. By extension, a homosexual was defined as anyone who engages or desires to engage in such conduct. The “gay” movement itself embraced this definition, in which the term “homosexuality” had meaning only in relation to same-gender sexual behavior.

    After 1986, the “gay” movement began to redefine homosexuality as a normal and immutable condition equivalent to heterosexuality, a state-of-being completely independent of conduct. Under the new definition, “straights” can choose same-gender sexual relations and “gays” can choose opposite-gender relations without any alteration of their true “sexual orientation.”

    Why the change in strategy?

    1986 was the year that the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Bowers v. Hardwick, upheld the right of states to criminalize homosexual conduct. The “gay” movement had argued that homosexual sodomy should be viewed by the court as a fundamental privacy right no different than marital sexual relations. The court firmly rejected that argument in 1986, though, unfortunately, the constitutional right of states to regulate homosexual conduct was overturned in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.

    Thwarted in its goal to legitimize homosexual conduct as a fundamental right, the “gay” movement turned to the only other basis on which it could claim constitutional protection: minority status as a “suspect class.” The Supreme Court recognizes minority status only for those groups which 1) have suffered a history of discrimination, 2) are powerless to help themselves and 3) are defined by immutable characteristics.

    This is the secret to understanding why the “gay” movement now denies that homosexuality is behavior-based and instead insists that homosexuality is innate and unchangeable. It is not science. It is a legal and political strategy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Ryan Sproull (7,095 comments) says:

    Just as there is no argument you, by your position, are destroying the family unit.

    I disagree. That you discriminate against same-sex couples is not in question – it is discrimination against same-sex couples that is the very thing for which you are arguing. You are saying that the state should continue to treat them differently from different-sex couples – should continue to discriminate. To cease discrimination would result in undesirable consequences – the destruction of the family unit, etc.

    As I understand it, your position is that marriage is currently commonly understood to be between two people who can raise a family (I disagree), and that if the state implicitly endorses redefining marriage to being between two consenting adults who love each other it will alter how the next generation will perceive marriage (I disagree) – that they will perceive marriage as simply a question of with whom one has sex (I disagree) – and that this redefinition is part of a broader plan or at least sets the stage for “family” being functionally redefined as an unlimited number of partners and children from those partnerships with little or no stability (I disagree).

    Is there any part of that which I have misunderstood?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Leaping Jimmy (16,227 comments) says:

    You are saying that the state should continue to treat them differently from different-sex couples – should continue to discriminate.

    Ryan, same-sex couples are different from hetero couples. This is because hetero couples can have children. Hooray.

    Same-sex couples can’t. Hooray.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Ryan Sproull (7,095 comments) says:

    Ryan, same-sex couples are different from hetero couples. This is because hetero couples can have children. Hooray.

    Not all can. But those that can’t, you dismiss as irrelevant to the matter. But you selectively do not dismiss same-sex couples who can’t have children by the same token.

    Same-sex couples can’t. Hooray.

    Through adoption, surrogacy or IVF, they can.

    Is there any part of my above summary of your position that I have misunderstood?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. wat dabney (3,708 comments) says:

    Jimmy,

    What you are saying consists entirely of unsupported nonsense about the end of civilisation if the relationship of two people of the same sex gets to receive equal treatment before the law.

    It has no more validity than the equivalent argument wheeled out previously to opposed mixed race marriages, or the pathetic claims of an Imam explaining how society will perish if we stop oppressing our women.

    You can be as prejudiced and bigoted as you wish in your private life and I’ll support you. What you don’t get to do is use the mechanisms of the state to impose your mean little views on everyone else.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    davinci
    I mean that any legislation regulating consenting adult relationships should be abolished, including any restrictions on adoption.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Leaping Jimmy (16,227 comments) says:

    OK, Ryan and wat. What I have been saying all day relates to the social perception of what marriage is as an institution, in people’s minds.

    This has nothing whatsoever to do with the reality, or what should be, in terms of anything.

    It is all perception.

    The current perception, whether or not either of you like it or approve of it, is that marriage = family.

    This means, people get married to have kids.

    Gays can’t have kids.

    Therefore gays, in society, should not be equated with the concept of marriage.

    Now whether or not you think this is just, righteous, true or anything else, is irrelevant. The fact is. This is how society thinks, today. Period. Who cares what you think. This is how society thinks.

    Some of you, Ryan and wat included possibly, seem to think it would be simply terrif were this to be changed, because you seem to think this is discwimination.

    I don’t. I just think, this is biology.

    This is, how it, in fact, is.

    So herein lies our schism, it would appear.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. thedavincimode (6,617 comments) says:

    Some of the hang-ups here are interesting in that I can understand the attitudes to the extent that they are are driven from perceptions arising from biblical spin from churches, yet some churches, excluding the Holy Roman Church of Kiddy Fiddlers, actually accept and embrace (figuaratively) those of the homo pursuasion.

    Whilst I cannot understand why a chap would want another chap’s gentleman’s sausage inserted in the exhaust port, or why a chap might want to bury his face in another chap’s sausage and plums, equally I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone could bring themselves to vote for the dodgy creep Peters, the green gargoyle or that dreadful little prick Mallard. And yet they do.

    There is a presumption that those of the homo pursuasion can’t be trusted around kids, which is presumably part of the concern underlying some of the bigotry here, yet look around: how many homos in relationships wind up before the beak charged with kiddy fiddling? Would that be none? On the other hand, how many of you would be comfortable with having your kid raised by Mallard, the gargoyle or the creep Peters? This does not compute on any rationale basis ( and go back to RRM at 1.33pm). Sexual orientation in itself is not a rational reason to deny adoption or equality. To do that simply assumes that the worst characteristics of people in society are manifested according to sexual orientation. On that basis, it would be heterosexuals on the back foot in this context.

    BTW, should have included Chubby Chauvel in the list of prohibited child raisers; not because he is a homo, simply because he is quite dreadful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. wat dabney (3,708 comments) says:

    Jimmy,

    So a person living in the Middle East has no right to practise Christianity because the majority – Muslims – have a perception that it is wrong and bad for society.

    I quote: ‘Now whether or not you think this is just, righteous, true or anything else, is irrelevant. The fact is. This is how society thinks, today. Period. Who cares what you think. This is how society thinks.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    And he would obviously bring his children up on the same sort of diet he partakes in Leonardo, hence damning them to a lifetime on Lipitor! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Ryan Sproull (7,095 comments) says:

    OK, Ryan and wat. What I have been saying all day relates to the social perception of what marriage is as an institution, in people’s minds.

    This has nothing whatsoever to do with the reality, or what should be, in terms of anything.

    It is all perception.

    The current perception, whether or not either of you like it or approve of it, is that marriage = family.

    I disagree that this is the current perception, whether or not you like it or approve of it.

    This means, people get married to have kids.

    I disagree.

    Gays can’t have kids.

    I disagree.

    Therefore gays, in society, should not be equated with the concept of marriage.

    Now whether or not you think this is just, righteous, true or anything else, is irrelevant. The fact is. This is how society thinks, today. Period. Who cares what you think. This is how society thinks.

    I disagree.

    Some of you, Ryan and wat included possibly, seem to think it would be simply terrif were this to be changed, because you seem to think this is discwimination.

    You’ve done so well, Jimmy. Do you really want to start replacing R with W like one of those clever kids?

    I don’t. I just think, this is biology.

    This is, how it, in fact, is.

    I disagree.

    So herein lies our schism, it would appear.

    And I disagree.

    Just how weird do you think most people would perceive a post-menopausal woman getting married, or an infertile couple getting married? Do you honestly believe that it would fundamentally conflict with most New Zealanders’ idea of marriage as a child-producing union? Or do you think most New Zealanders would wish those couples well? Maybe encourage an infertile couple to adopt or consider IVF?

    I’m not sure how much you really believe what you’re saying. It could be that you associate with such a vastly different kind of person from the people I do, that you understandably think New Zealanders see marriage as primarily about child-bearing while my own social circles and I see marriage as primarily about love and commitment.

    The alternative is that you and your social circles see marriage as something between a man and a woman, regardless of their potential to procreate, and that it is not their lack of child-bearing that makes same-sex couples “not marriage” to you, but rather the sameness of their sexes.

    If you can honestly tell me that you believe New Zealanders would consider a non-child-bearing heterosexual marriage to be, on reflection, a contradiction in terms, then I can believe the former about you. But if you honestly tell me that you believe New Zealanders would have no problem with a non-child-bearing heterosexual marriage, I’m forced to believe the latter about you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I can’t understand the equation of marriage with children. Does that mean that the elderly or infertile should not be allowed to marry?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Andrei (2,547 comments) says:

    The fact that this is even a matter of discussion shows that we live in a society that is mentally ill.

    It makes no sense at all – its bonkers, off the planet bonkers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    Of course not old chap.

    Have you never heard of Viagra and IVF?

    Or even of the “Pool Guy” ? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Griff (7,366 comments) says:

    thedavincimode
    I have two filth to add to you list strangely enough they would have had the vote on a few of the homophobic lobby on here
    A little from Wiki on them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Heritage_Party_of_New_Zealand
    Capill emailed supporters asking that they pray for a light sentence and claiming the sex with one of the young girls as “consensual”
    Owens began to exhibit signs of alcoholism and allegedly misused Capill’s credit card for $NZ1000 worth of phone-sex calls

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. thedavincimode (6,617 comments) says:

    mikeymuggins

    Yes. Especially the elderly. That’s just plain dirty and not at all what G*d intended.

    Griff

    Gosh, yes. And they weren’t even from the Holy Roman Church of Kiddy Fiddlers. Perhaps they are the further exceptions that prove the rule.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Leaping Jimmy (16,227 comments) says:

    Do you honestly believe that it would fundamentally conflict with most New Zealanders’ idea of marriage as a child-producing union?

    Ryan, I honestly believe that most NZer’s would think that gay marriage is absolutely super and it’s the right thing to do, because it’s about opening up the sacred institution of marriage to the whole of the Christian communion and in order to be inclusive this is the right thing to do.

    But so what?

    Everything I have said on this thread since this morning explains why such would be a bad idea. I not only explain why doing so in the first place would be a bad idea, I explain why down the road twenty, thirty years in the future, it would be a bad idea.

    So not sure what your point is Ryan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    When do you think the first Gay Pope will be elected LJ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Don’t you mean who WAS the first gay Pope?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Ryan Sproull (7,095 comments) says:

    Ryan, I honestly believe that most NZer’s would think that gay marriage is absolutely super and it’s the right thing to do, because it’s about opening up the sacred institution of marriage to the whole of the Christian communion and in order to be inclusive this is the right thing to do.

    But so what?

    Everything I have said on this thread since this morning explains why such would be a bad idea. I not only explain why doing so in the first place would be a bad idea, I explain why down the road twenty, thirty years in the future, it would be a bad idea.

    So not sure what your point is Ryan.

    Your objection to gay marriage seems to vary. Is it no longer about child-bearing being fundamental to the idea of marriage? You’ve made multiple posts claiming that same-sex couples can’t produce children (except by surrogacy or IVF) and that this is why recognising same-sex marriages would involve a radical shift in what marriage means. But you dismiss those many non-child-producing straight marriages as irrelevant to this point.

    Your explanation of why down the road marriage equality would be a bad thing seems to hang on this idea of the child-bearing family, but you don’t address the question of non-child-bearing straight couples or child-bearing same-sex couples.

    Without you explicitly saying so, it’s presumptuous of me to say, but it really does seem like you’ve started with the position “same-sex marriage is bad” and worked backwards from there to justify the position. You gloss over the inconsistencies in your argument because obviously they can’t be a problem, since obviously your initial premise is correct: same-sex marriage is wrong/contradictory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    That was the Archbishop of Canterbury milkey! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I am reminded again of Gibbon’s enduring words, Johnboy:
    ‘John the Twenty-third was the first victim; he fled and was brought back a prisoner; the most scandalous charges were suppressed; the Vicar of Christ was only accused of piracy, murder, rape, sodomy, and incest’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    Thank God I’m Johnboy the twenty fourth then! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Even the Popes haven’t got up to 24 Johns yet. Perhaps you’ll just have to remain the Patriarch of Wainuiomata until your eventual ascension.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Nostalgia-NZ (5,097 comments) says:

    This is a useful diversion by JK, but what percentage of the overall population would be utilising any new law? Judging JK’s statements he’s letting this run but allowing himself the comeback of being conservative on the issue as it may progress to any final vote. He’s teasing the masses, and the masses are loving and hating it by turn.

    At the moment, if old Banksie fessed up he’d be lucky to get on pg 3 even after admitting that Dotcom has a wife already and might not be looking for a husband afterall.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Fletch (6,253 comments) says:

    how many homos in relationships wind up before the beak charged with kiddy fiddling? Would that be none?

    Actually there is a very strong connection between gays, NAMBLA and sex with minors.

    http://www.mega.nu/ampp/baldwin_pedophilia_homosexuality.pdf

    Similarly, mainstream gay publications make no effort to hide their
    pro-pedophilia views. For example, BLK, a leading black homosexual
    publication, defended pedophilia with an article entitled, “Must Men
    Who Love Boys Be Guilty of Sexual Misconduct?”
    30
    San Francisco’s
    leading homosexual newspaper, The Sentinel, bluntly editorialized, “The
    love between man and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality.”
    31

    In 1995, the homosexual magazine Guide stated:
    We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few
    voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are
    naturally sexual, that they deserve the right to sexual expression with
    whoever they choose . . . [w]e must listen to our prophets. Instead of
    fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is
    good, including children’s sexuality . . . . We must do it for the
    children’s sake.
    32

    Read the whole thing – it is very informative.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    How many sheep should I sacrifice milkey?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Keep a fatted calf for the occasion, perhaps?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    Sorry milkey, burnt him last week at Maidstone Park! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    As Upper Hutt were burnt by the mighty Hutt Old Boys on Saturday!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    Now 74-7 is what I call a proper incineration.

    Two lucky tries in the dying minutes is more a flash in the pan! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Did Piri turn out again, or has he lost enough weight now that he can just have one game a week?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    Normally I would congratulate someone on 4000 but in your case I’ll make an exception milkey! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Leaping Jimmy (16,227 comments) says:

    Your objection to gay marriage seems to vary. Is it no longer about child-bearing being fundamental to the idea of marriage? You’ve made multiple posts claiming that same-sex couples can’t produce children (except by surrogacy or IVF) and that this is why recognising same-sex marriages would involve a radical shift in what marriage means. But you dismiss those many non-child-producing straight marriages as irrelevant to this point.

    Ryan perhaps you should review my posts today from the beginning.

    Child-bearing is fundamental to THE CONCEPT of what marriage is, IN PEOPLE’S MINDS. This is NOT MY OWN IDEA but rather HOW SOCIETY ACTUALLY WORKS.

    You may not regard this as partcularly convenient from the perspective of “gay rights” (whatever that concept may mean in your own mind), but I can’t help any of that. Sorry. It is what it, in fact, is.

    Without you explicitly saying so, it’s presumptuous of me to say, but it really does seem like you’ve started with the position “same-sex marriage is bad” and worked backwards from there to justify the position.

    No I haven’t done any of that, as you will discover, if you read all of my posts on this thread today.

    I am simply saying, 1) civilisation is based on raising children (obviously, this is true, n’est pas?). 2) Children don’t happen via gay marriage. 3) Ergo, gay marriage does not support society. 4) Not only does gay marriage not support society, but if society supports gay marriage it does, definitely and inevitably undermine in people’s minds, the value of the family unit, for reasons heretofore explained.

    What about this is hard to understand?

    You may not like this Ryan, but pray do not pretend you are doing anything less than undermining society if you support gay marriage. We all know you are. Sorry. Simple as that. Period. Read my above comments from 12:28 on, if you think otherwise. Sorry. But there we are. Period.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Last time I checked, many children were born without their parents being married, some children were born without their biological parents even meeting, and many kids were being happily raised by parents, single or couples, of varying sexual orientations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Ryan Sproull (7,095 comments) says:

    Ryan perhaps you should review my posts today from the beginning.

    It would take a while. Summarise for me.

    Child-bearing is fundamental to THE CONCEPT of what marriage is, IN PEOPLE’S MINDS. This is NOT MY OWN IDEA but rather HOW SOCIETY ACTUALLY WORKS.

    And yet no one has to do any conceptual acrobatics to accept, condone and applaud a non-child-bearing straight couple’s marriage. I’m not talking about how a reality fails to meet an ideal. I’m talking about evidence that your assertions of what is fundamental to the concept of marriage are demonstrably incorrect.

    You may not regard this as partcularly convenient from the perspective of “gay rights” (whatever that concept may mean in your own mind), but I can’t help any of that. Sorry. It is what it, in fact, is.

    I am simply saying, 1) civilisation is based on raising children (obviously, this is true, n’est pas?).

    There is more to civilisation than raising children. Raising children is a necessary but not sufficient factor in a people being civilised.

    2) Children don’t happen via gay marriage.

    Nor with non-child-bearing straight couples.

    3) Ergo, gay marriage does not support society.

    Nor does non-child-bearing straight marriage support society, by these standards you profess.

    4) Not only does gay marriage not support society, but if society supports gay marriage it does, definitely and inevitably undermine in people’s minds, the value of the family unit, for reasons heretofore explained.

    And therefore not only do non-child-bearing straight marriages not support society, but if society supports non-child-bearing straight marriages, it does definitely and inevitably undermine in people’s minds the value of the family unit, by your own logic.

    What about this is hard to understand?

    Indeed.

    You may not like this Ryan, but pray do not pretend you are doing anything less than undermining society if you support gay marriage. We all know you are. Sorry. Simple as that. Period. Read my above comments from 12:28 on, if you think otherwise. Sorry. But there we are. Period.

    You’re becoming untethered, Leaping Jimmy. I could count the number of my questions you have not just failed to answer, but simply ignored – though I would run out of fingers on which to count.

    You dismiss non-child-bearing straight couples from the question of marriage by claiming you’re not talking about the unideal reality, but the unrealistic ideal. Fine. But if that is so, why not include same-sex couples with non-child-bearing straight couples in your flexibility to account for those couplings that do not live up to your child-bearing-marriage ideal?

    What is the difference, for the purposes of your definition of marriage (that you claim is common to most New Zealanders), between a non-child-bearing straight couple and a non-child-bearing gay couple?

    Deny marriage to neither or both, but not just one while you claim that your arguments possess some modicum of logical consistency.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Leaping Jimmy (16,227 comments) says:

    You dismiss non-child-bearing straight couples from the question of marriage by claiming you’re not talking about the unideal reality, but the unrealistic ideal. Fine. But if that is so, why not include same-sex couples with non-child-bearing straight couples in your flexibility to account for those couplings that do not live up to your child-bearing-marriage ideal?

    Ryan how can you sustain and nurture a civilisation without child bearing?

    If you had a civilisation which had 100% GBLT couples, how could that sustain itself? Even for a hundred years, let alone for a thousand?

    Case closed.

    Fucking doh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. slijmbal (1,227 comments) says:

    @LJ – couple of fallacies in there

    Main one – homosexuality is almost certainly a minority of around 3% – the world will not suddenly stop.

    Hetero and do not understand at all how people are attracted to the same sex – I guess something in the wiring. But not really my problem – they are people too – we are often nicer to criminals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. thedavincimode (6,617 comments) says:

    JB

    Are you sure you weren’t thinking of the Bishop of Bath & Wells? (sp?)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Leaping Jimmy (16,227 comments) says:

    world will not suddenly stop

    No-one is saying it will. One is saying it would be detremental to world civilisation to equate gay union with proper marriage therefore it should never happen, period. Reasons have been previously explained.

    Are you sure you weren’t thinking of the Bishop of Bath & Wells?

    I’m not sure DVM, (if you were even thinking of me: [JB vs LJ]. Assuming you were then: No, I don’t think so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. slijmbal (1,227 comments) says:

    @LJ – you ducked my comment – troll characteristic

    you intimated the world would stop in your comment and then deny that

    troll characteristic

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. RRM (9,782 comments) says:

    Case closed.

    Fucking doh.

    Except that gay couples do raise children… ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Leaping Jimmy (16,227 comments) says:

    @LJ – you ducked my comment

    What response are you expecting? I saw a couple of statements but no questions. If you want a response then ask a question.

    Except that gay couples do raise children

    Yes so what has that got to do with anything I said all day?

    Are you trying to dissemble RRM?

    It certainly looks like you are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Ryan Sproull (7,095 comments) says:

    Ryan how can you sustain and nurture a civilisation without child bearing?

    If you had a civilisation which had 100% GBLT couples, how could that sustain itself? Even for a hundred years, let alone for a thousand?

    Case closed.

    Fucking doh.

    Another question ignored.

    Is your position that recognising marriage equality for same-sex couples will result in 100% LGT couples? (Assuming the B for Bisexual was accidental.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Ryan Sproull (7,095 comments) says:

    I’ll ask again for clarity’s sake, Leaping Jimmy:

    What is the difference, for the purposes of your definition of marriage (that you claim is common to most New Zealanders), between a non-child-bearing straight couple and a non-child-bearing gay couple?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Leaping Jimmy (16,227 comments) says:

    Don’t obfuscate Ryan.

    Why is denying the ability for two gays to marry, discrimination?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Michael Mckee (1,091 comments) says:

    I just love the posters who say religion (meaning bible) was after marriage and even those who like to state that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, therefore He had no position on it. (especially those in the church!)

    God is pretty clear about a man and a woman in talking about marriage in Genesis.
    Genesis 2:24-25
    24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
    25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

    Jesus is pretty clear here too, for those of you with a modern NT you’ll find this in “Red ink” as they are Jesus’s own words.
    Mathew 19: 4-6
    4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

    So from a faith position the ground is a lot clearer than some of you make out.

    The question of whether Homosexuality is natural or aberrant from a faith point of view is also clear as here God and Jesus state their preference, which should certainly trump their adherents positions or leanings on the issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Ryan Sproull (7,095 comments) says:

    Don’t obfuscate Ryan.

    Why is denying the ability for two gays to marry, discrimination?

    It is treating two couples of consenting adults differently on the basis of their sex.

    See how easy it is to answer questions? Here’s mine for you a third time.

    What is the difference, for the purposes of your definition of marriage (that you claim is common to most New Zealanders), between a non-child-bearing straight couple and a non-child-bearing gay couple?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Ryan Sproull (7,095 comments) says:

    The question of whether Homosexuality is natural or aberrant from a faith point of view is also clear as here God and Jesus state their preference, which should certainly trump their adherents positions or leanings on the issue.

    Then I recommend that you, as a Christian, do not marry any other men.

    Meanwhile, your religious views should not be imposed on everyone else through the machinery of the state. Or it’ll get confusing when you’re not allowed to eat pork any more when other people’s religious views are imposed on you through the machinery of the state.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Leaping Jimmy (16,227 comments) says:

    What is the difference, for the purposes of your definition of marriage (that you claim is common to most New Zealanders), between a non-child-bearing straight couple and a non-child-bearing gay couple?

    None.

    Except one should never be “married” because they are gay and the other can be married because they are “straight”

    And the reason this is, lies in the definition, of “gay” and “straight” which evil or disingenuous people like you, pretend not to understand the significance of.

    Pick one, Ryan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Ryan Sproull (7,095 comments) says:

    None.

    Except one should never be “married” because they are gay and the other can be married because they are “straight”

    And the reason this is, lies in the definition, of “gay” and “straight” which evil or disingenuous people like you, pretend not to understand the significance of.

    Pick one, Ryan.

    You put an awful lot of effort into arguing that the basic essential part of marriage was child-bearing to go back on it now. Incredible gall to call me disingenuous after this.

    So you’re ready to admit that your problem with gay marriage is that it’s gay, not that it’s unprocreative? Or is there a bit more… what did you call it? Obfusca-something… to come?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. RRM (9,782 comments) says:

    Yes so what has that got to do with anything I said all day?

    Are you trying to dissemble RRM?

    Not at all! It has to do with my point #2 from way back near the start, which you have been ignoring because you can’t refute it:

    (2)
    Some gay couples are better parents than some straight couples. Therefore it seems crazy to legislate against families with gay parents.

    It also has something to do with the claim You have been making all day: that marriage is first and foremost about raising children.

    You say marriage is all about raising children. And you now know that homosexual couples can and do raise children; so then why isn’t marriage suitable for homosexuals?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,570 comments) says:

    Thankfully the liberal right wing, oft described by the Redbaiter and his ilk, as parasitic/progressives/Marxists etc etc are fully in favour of gay marriage. Whilst it’s not the states role to define marriage, nor is it the right for inbred christian bigots to define it for others.

    The strong responses against it seems to come from a very angry dark place. Just as the bible was in favour of taking up slaves, I can imagine this lot being against the civil rights movement in the US using their bible to justify that too. It seems that the love between two adults no matter what their sex is isn’t as important as protecting the 48 hour marriage of Britney Spears… once you unravel all the craziness spouted out by the religious crowd on this, it all starts to look ridiculous for them all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. eszett (2,396 comments) says:

    Well said LMK.

    It’s not if but when gay marriage will be legal in this country and the vast majority of people (regardless of politics) will be wondering what all the fuss was about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Michael Mckee (1,091 comments) says:

    Again LMK you misinterpret scripture for your own ends.

    Paul’s plea on behalf of Onesimus in the NT brings back a slave to his owner asking the owner of the slave to treat him as he would be treated, even as his brother, which he now is.
    He does not agree with nor encourage slavery but recognises it’s existence in that society, if anything he comes against it’s wickedness.

    http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/5701.htm
    Explains it far better than I.

    Might I remind you and the others who parrot the stupidity that Christianity agrees with Slavery, that William Wilberforce and his group worked for decades to end slavery with the aid of the PM Pitt the younger.
    Decades trying to get it abolished against the Institutional wickedness of the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Camryn (538 comments) says:

    The state took over the function or registering relationships from the church and, at the same time, adopted the word “marriage”. The state needs to refute any remaining religious ownership of the term by applying it equally to everyone or it needs to return the word to churches and register only civil unions for all sexual orientations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Pete George (23,434 comments) says:

    If “marriage” was re-defined as only applying to Christian traditional marriage (as opposed to non-Christian marriage and pre-marriage Christianity) would I be compelled to get divorced?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,570 comments) says:

    @ Michael McKee – I believe it’s YOU that is misinterpreting your bible for your own ends. Slavery is encouraged in your bible. In fact so is incest, adultery and murder. You also forget that many people, indeed much of the planet, don’t believe in christianity either. Some religions are more tolerant about homosexuals than the christians, who are told to love one another and to not judge others. Just because your book is interpreted that it might be wrong, doesn’t mean we all have to live by what you say.

    Ephesians, Timothy, Matthew and Luke all contain pro slavery remarks. Your jesus never condemned it once. The word servants in the bible meant that they were slaves, it was just reworded to not make it look so bad. The bible goes so far as to tell you how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves.

    But I digress. You’ll still point at your book and say it’s all interpreted wrong and I’m twisting it. A little how you’re using it now to not allow every human adult who is lucky enough to find love, to not be married. What a nice chap you are!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. eszett (2,396 comments) says:

    @Michael McKee – Thou shall not have slaves would have been too easy, right?

    Now you have to “interpret” the bible:

        However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.  (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

    and

        When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.  (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

    So much for slavery and sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman in the bible. Not a problem when you can buy some more female slaves.

    All just a matter of interpretation.

    Hey, but letting two men or two women who love each other and are committed to each other marry is evil.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Fletch (6,253 comments) says:

    eszett, if you’re really interested in the type of “slavery” mentioned in the Bible beyond your cut and paste job, then check out the link http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

    It covers this passage in detail

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    The Messiah soldiers on his defense of gay marriage: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/14/obama-calls-for-repeal-defense-marriage-act-while-touting-support-for-gay/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    or it needs to return the word to churches and register only civil unions for all sexual orientations.

    This is the only logical solution in my opinion.

    The State has a different mandate to the church and necessarily should not mess with long standing traditions (marriage) and simply focus on legal equality for those that seek some sort of long term commitment (civil unions).

    Simple solution, however, completely unacceptable to bigots on both sides.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/15/just-7-percent-see-gay-marriage-as-top-issue-in-november-poll-shows/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,570 comments) says:

    No No No Fletch. No amount of weasling out or “interpreting” slavery is going to get you out of this one. We could equally interpret the significance of homosexuals in the same way, like your lot did with shell fish, incest and buggering kids in the Catholic church.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.