Major party leaders all support same sex marriage

May 11th, 2012 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Claire Trevett at the NZ Herald reports:

Prime Minister has followed US President Barack Obama and said he is not opposed to gay marriage – an apparent change in his stance. …

But yesterday, in a response to the AP news service after President Obama said gays should be allowed to wed, Mr Key said he was “not personally opposed to gay marriage” and it was possible Parliament would consider a member’s bill at some stage. …

Labour Party leader said he fully supported marriage equality in principle but would like to see the detail of any legislation before giving it formal support. …

Maori Party co-leader said she would support same-sex marriage, as individuals and whanau had the right to choose for themselves whether to marry. …

Greens co-leader said she was pleased President Obama had taken a stand on what was a very difficult moral issue in America. …

She said the Green Party supported same-sex marriage in New Zealand and had argued for it when the Civil Union Bill was being passed.

I have to say I’m very proud to be a member of the National Party today, and also proud to be a New Zealander.

Leaders of four of the five largest parties in Parliament have all said they are not opposed to gay marriage. This is a good reflection on New Zealand. It also reflects our leaders being in touch with younger New Zealanders. On issues such as gay marriage, there is overwhelming support amongst younger people. Today we consider it incredible that 30 years ago people could be jailed for consensual sex among adults of the same sex. Likewise in 30 years time people will find it strange that there was once a time when a same sex couple couldn’t get married.

The National Party is a mixture of liberalism and conservatism, and overall is more conservative than liberal. Hence it is no small thing to have its leader, and the country’s prime minister, say he is not opposed to gay marriage.

Labour MP Louisa Wall, in a guest post at Whale Oil, says she is working on a bill to amend the Marriage Act. Once submitted to the ballot, it might not be drawn for years, but on the other hand it might get drawn the first time there is a ballot. So anyone’s guess when Parliament might consider this issue.

Tags: , , , ,

247 Responses to “Major party leaders all support same sex marriage”

  1. immigant (950 comments) says:

    Oh my God Who the hell cares?!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Pete George (22,853 comments) says:

    I’ve started collating MP views on same sex marriage/marriage equality, I’ll do more on it over the weekend.

    I’m getting this from any sources I can find, and have also emailed all MPs, the first two to reposnd were Trevor Mallard and Tau Henare, good on them.

    Generally it’s only those who approve that have so far been willing to say.

    - MPs on same sex marriage

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

    Immigant – the people who are not allowed to marry the people they love care very deeply about this. As do I. Does every societal change have to get your buy in first? Who made you Fuhrer?

    I link to this a lot, but this video is excellent. I see nothing here that anyone has any sensible reason to oppose: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TBd-UCwVAY

    I won’t be a proud New Zealander until one of these leaders has the stones to actually push for the legislative changes required to make this happen. We elect politicians not simply to “support” causes, but to make them happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Pete George (22,853 comments) says:

    My personal views are much the same as what Louisa Wall expressed in her Whaleoil post, including:

    I believe we all need to consider this matter in terms of equality and not our personal beliefs. In doing that no rational person could in my view oppose all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, having the same legal rights and ability to choose for themselves how they express their commitment and love for another person.

    One opinion is that civil unions cover the legal side ok so gays should be satisified with that. I disagree, I know some gays are fine with CU but it can feel like second class status eg “real marriages for real people, the misfits can have a civil union”.

    So I support fully equal status on marriage or civil union no matter what a person’s sexual preference or choice of partner is.

    I also agree with The Baron – this needs gumption from our leaders, they should be leading on this, not just saying “ah, yeah, ok I agree but won’t bother doing anything about it”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. dime (9,453 comments) says:

    I thought Gay people could already get married? isnt that what a civil union is?

    What will be next for the gay community if they do pass a law like this? what other terrible injustice can they find?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. LabourDoesntWork (282 comments) says:

    “younger New Zealanders” ?? Since when did the young know better than the old? Oh yeah, since the 60′s. (but they don’t really.)
    Isn’t such thinking the opposite of leadership? It’s more like phony half-hearted posturing of sychophants who only seek to be popular with those for whom popularity matters most.
    The dopey NZ media was reporting with knee-jerk eagerness about Obama’s non-stance yesterday. As if that’ll be an election winner for him, anyway. It’s not; which is why he won’t pursue it. Heck, they couldn’t even pass it as State law in California, lol. Honestly, you might as well ask the cat as go to NZ media to be fully informed about US politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. RRM (9,468 comments) says:

    As per Whale Oil comments in the thread on his site, Civil Union gives fewer rights than Marriage. Even a Straight couple in a civil union can’t adopt children for example.

    So a civil union is NOT equivalent to marriage, it is less than a marriage, and while CUs are available to gays but marriage is not available to them, my country is still saying that Gays are second-class and they are not entitled to the same freedoms and rights as any other citizens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. James Stephenson (2,034 comments) says:

    I also agree with The Baron – this needs gumption from our leaders, they should be leading on this, not just saying “ah, yeah, ok I agree but won’t bother doing anything about it”.

    Why? What makes it so important that it has to jump to the top of everyone’s priority list? I’m with dime, this appears to be a symptom of professional whingers running out of stuff to whinge about and scraping the barrel as loudly as they can.

    If this is all about “equality” and the state not differentiating on the basis of sexual orientation, then why should the state set an arbitrary limit on two people within a relationship contract? If we’re going to amend the marriage act, we may as well ditch the old fashioned prohibition on polygamy as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. PaulL (5,873 comments) says:

    I see it a bit differently. In broad terms I support equality for those who are gay.

    However, as someone who lives in the classical liberal end of the spectrum, the answer for me isn’t “the government needs to make it legal for gays to marry.” The answer is “why the hell is the government involved in deciding who can and cannot marry?”

    The right answer, as DPF has said many times, is the govt should have nothing to do with marriage. If you want to make a binding contractual commitment to another person, you do so through a civil union. If you live with them long enough the govt decides you’re a couple anyway, but if you want you can come to the govt and formalise that arrangement.

    If you want to have a ceremony where you pledge your undying commitment before the deity of your choice, or with no deity involved at all, that’s between you and your religion and/or your celebrant. And so long as your religion and/or celebrant is prepared to marry you, then that’s no business of the government nor of other people in the country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. RRM (9,468 comments) says:

    Why? What makes it so important that it has to jump to the top of everyone’s priority list?

    If we’re going to amend the marriage act, we may as well ditch the old fashioned prohibition on polygamy as well.

    Good idea James, perhaps you’d like to get up and make the effort to champion that cause?

    Don’t knock people just for having the determination to give a sh!t about putting something right.

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

    However, as someone who lives in the classical liberal end of the spectrum, the answer for me isn’t “the government needs to make it legal for gays to marry.” The answer is “why the hell is the government involved in deciding who can and cannot marry?”

    I agree. In the meantime, while it’s there, it should be equal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. dime (9,453 comments) says:

    “As per Whale Oil comments in the thread on his site, Civil Union gives fewer rights than Marriage. Even a Straight couple in a civil union can’t adopt children for example.”

    ok, what if civil unions had exactly the same rights as marriage but still wasnt called marriage?

    it seems to me a bunch of gays just want to encroach on a religious practice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Andrei (2,504 comments) says:

    Politicians are out of touch with reality – if a powerful enough lobby called for the Sun to rise in the West, they’d pass a law to make it so.

    The Sun would continue rise in the East as ever however and so it will be with unnatural marriage – it will remain a sham, a monument to vanity because no amount of political posturing, pandering or legislation will make these unions fecund.

    And at its heart marriage is about conceiving and raising future generations in an orderly manner – it serves no other societal purpose.

    “Alice through the looking glass” stuff

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. RRM (9,468 comments) says:

    I dunno – but at the moment they are being told they are entitled to less rights than “proper” people, I fully support them complaining about that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Aredhel777 (278 comments) says:

    While this was really a matter of time given how for some reason gay marriage is the one thing the relativists in our culture really care about, I am still saddened by how far our culture has fallen. You people will reap what you sow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. SalParadise (54 comments) says:

    With all the leaders in agreement it would be nice to think we could see a cross-party bill on this!

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

    Ddefinitely a political agenda. Obama is saying the same thing. he writes the script for all the international leaders

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. James Stephenson (2,034 comments) says:

    Don’t knock people just for having the determination to give a sh!t about putting something right.

    I don’t get where there is anything really “wrong”, it’s not like same-sex partners still don’t have the same next-of-kin rights when it comes to the rules around inheritance and pensions. That was something that was wrong.

    No amount of legislation is going to make Poster Gay Couple A believe their relationship is not equivalent to a married couple’s, or Andrei believe that it is.

    I fucking hate legislation-to-send-a-message-to-society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Keeping Stock (10,104 comments) says:

    I have mixed feelings over this measure, recognising that the arguments from both sides have merit. However I wonder what has changed since 9 December 2004 when David Benso-Pope, the sponsor of the Bill told Parliament during the Third Reading speech:

    After all, what is being asked for here seems so modest. Marriage remains something available solely to a man and a woman. Civil unions offer an alternative to those unable to marry, or who do not wish to marry. Civil unions are to be a new relationship option that takes nothing from anyone else, while providing choice to people currently denied it.

    Later on Chris Carter said this:

    I am confident that this bill will pass in the vote that will follow soon after my speech. Tomorrow, all New Zealanders will wake up in a country that has enhanced its reputation as a society that respects human rights and cares about all its people. Tomorrow, all New Zealanders will wake up with a new freedom and we will not have taken anything from anyone. For the first time, every citizen in this nation will be able to formalise with the State his or her long-term relationship. For the majority, they will have a choice between a marriage and a civil union. For the nation’s same-sex couples, we will have an opportunity that we have always been denied. For my partner, Peter, and I, the ability to register our relationship will come almost 32 years after we met.

    I have attended many weddings in my life. I have stood beside good friends as they marry. I look forward to the chance to extend a similar invitation to commemorate my partnership. In the months and years following today, I expect that tens of thousands of loving, stable couples—both homosexual and heterosexual—will participate in civil union ceremonies all over New Zealand. In doing so they will celebrate with their friends and their families, gay and straight, everything that makes us human, in the same way that other couples do when they get married.

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/2/2/8/47HansD_20041209_00000803-Civil-Union-Bill-Procedure-Third-Reading.htm

    Throughout the debate which accompanied the passing of the Civil Union Act through its various stages, we were assured by its proponents that there was no intention to institute gay marriage. As Carter notes in his speech, the opportunity to have his relationship with his partner officially recognised was most imporatnt.

    Let’s face it; we already have gay marriage in every way except by name. When a high-profile gay couple enters into a civil union, the stories in the women’s magazines are all about their wedding. Gay people talk openly about their partners as husband or wife.

    Having declared eight years ago that the passing of the Civil Unions Act would meet gay couples’ desire for official recognition and registration of their relationships, it seems a little disingenuous that the issue is back on the table now for what will be a significant chance to the Marriage Act.

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

    ‘it seems to me a bunch of gays just want to encroach on a religious practice.’

    Political gays are nauseating. They love hetero’s fighting their battles for them. As in the case in Kapiti coast with Dale Evans.

    Hetero’s getting on the band wagon for gay rights. let them fight their own fights.

    Evans is a mini martyr making a very real problem magnified even more. Great strategy to expose the Kapiti Council on water meters

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

    I have to say I’m very proud to be a member of the National Party today, and also proud to be a New Zealander.

    What a load of bullshit. If I was extreme Left enough to be a National Party loser, I would be very ashamed that my party consisted of homophobic meatheads like Bill English and it’s about time Key told those dumb fucks to get in line with modern acceptance of minorities.

    Sadly the supposed libertarian party I support is also currently made up of one single homophobe which is a fucking embarrassment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Alan Wilkinson (1,816 comments) says:

    Couples who want to stay together and support each other have my support whatever their sexual preferences. Unfortunately too many of the other kind get my money.

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

    > it is no small thing to have its leader, and the country’s prime minister, say he is not opposed to gay marriage

    Talk is cheap. John Key says he now supports civil unions, but did he vote for them when he had the chance? No, he showed his true colours by opposing civil unions. I suspect if a Bill supporting gay marriage was introduced by Parliament, he would vote against it.

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

    > it seems a little disingenuous that the issue is back on the table now for what will be a significant chance to the Marriage Act

    It was never off the table. If the idea of gay marriage appals you, please explain why.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. RRM (9,468 comments) says:

    Hetero’s getting on the band wagon for gay rights. let them fight their own fights.

    Hi, “hetero” here.

    My country is systematically discriminating against law-abiding citizens for no good reason. This affects me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. tom hunter (4,428 comments) says:

    Two threads on Gay Marriage in two days! Hmmm

    “Gosh, we’re getting an awful lot of heat for the economy not doing better than it is. Not to mention that the few “big” ideas we have deployed just don’t seem to be doing anything economically or (especially) politically.

    What we need is a distraction. Something bright and shiny about which people will get stirred up and talking. Lots and lots of talking about anything but the real problems we are seemingly unable to resolve.

    Let’s see now, what have we got? Oh, I know….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Chthoniid (2,028 comments) says:

    @Alan Wilkinson

    well said

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. immigant (950 comments) says:

    So what rights does the CU not offer that Marriage does?

    Can we have a list and can we then debate if it actually matters?

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

    These gay marriage threads always amuse and bewilder me in equal proportion.

    We’ve already had some of my favourites:

    - Allusions to the end of civilization as we know it – thanks Andrei and Aredhel777
    - Outrage that “heteros” like me should be interested in the rights of others – well done wikiriwhis business!
    - Conspiracy theorists on how this is all part of some sinister global agenda – we’re through the looking glass with the help of Aredhel777 again (the two for one!)
    - “my religion” lets me dictate rules to other people – thanks for the welcome to our new theocracy guys!
    - And concern that this will all lead to polygamy and incest, for some reason – sage wisdom from dime yet again.

    I’m not going to mince my words here. These arguments are bigoted horse shit, and the people named above that make them are idiots that I am ashamed to share our society and era with. You people make me sick with your outdated and frankly ridiculous justifications for your discrimination.

    I see no point in engaging in conversation with retards like you – its like arguing with a particularly spastic brick wall.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Keeping Stock (10,104 comments) says:

    ross69 said

    It was never off the table. If the idea of gay marriage appals you, please explain why.

    I’ve never said that the idea of gay marriage appals me Ross, so kindly don’t put words into my mouth. Re-read the words that began my comment:

    I have mixed feelings over this measure, recognising that the arguments from both sides have merit.

    All I’m doing is asking what has changed since 9 December 2004 when those supporting the Civil Union Act said that there was no intention to change the Marriage Act. Was that really their intention all along, and was couching it as they did dishonest?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. kowtow (7,636 comments) says:

    So just what is “equality”,how far does it extend,what limits are there,who decides which spheres it applies to or doesn’t?

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

    And the homogenization of society continues unabated by our liberal elite overlords.

    Shades of grey is their preferred colour, and of course, those that disagree are evil bigots full of hate.

    The weakest aspect of society today revolves around being nice, you have to be nice dammit!!

    Well actually, I don’t.

    As a heterosexual male I have the right to define my own sexuality, I have the right to define it as between a male and a female and the union between each as deserving it’s own recognition, it’s own “colour” if you will.

    But not so say the apolitical liberal elite, you have to do what we say else you be consigned to evil bigot land where you belong.

    Grow up folks, get a clue, think beyond shallow contemporary culture and actually engage your thinking based not on the screaming from radical gay activists or psychopathic fundamentalist Christians, look at humanity as a collection of different expressions, not blend it all together as a one size fits all shade of boring grey.

    Marriage is a heterosexual institution, you are seeking to change that for no good reason other than the demands of a tiny but very noisy group of activists that just want what others have got.

    It is not about human rights, because there is no difference in the rights between marriage and a civil union, it is about the tradition, it is about redefining something that belongs to others.

    It is about the narcissism of extreme left wing activists, and like suckers people are swallowing it with glee.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Graeme Edgeler (3,267 comments) says:

    Today we consider it incredible that 30 years ago people could be jailed for consensual sex among adults of the same sex.

    Only men, not women.

    But I disagree. As wrong as it was, I don’t find it incredible. The relatively recent abolition of the law that permitted spousal rape is much more WTF than the prohibition of homosexual sex.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. immigant (950 comments) says:

    @The Baron

    You forgot to add this to your list:

    Those who don’t give a shit about gay rights, because there are bigger fish to fry in NZ at the moment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Tom Barker (103 comments) says:

    “Sadly the supposed libertarian party I support is also currently made up of one single homophobe which is a fucking embarrassment.”

    You won’t have to remain embarrassed much longer, Dick. That homophobe is, politically, a dead man walking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Alan Wilkinson (1,816 comments) says:

    SB, sorry, I can’t get that excited about defending this tradition against intruders. Even though I’ve been married for 45 years I’m happy to have other good people join the club whatever their sexual preferences. I’m more unhappy about those who debase it by failing to sustain the families and relationships they were responsible for.

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

    Immigant,

    1. Frying this fish would take about, what, a day if we didn’t have to pander to all the bigots.

    2. There is not many bigger fish than people’s right to marry the one they love. Human rights are never a big deal to the people that already have them.

    It not being important to you doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done – well, unless of course I missed the memo when you were put in charge?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. immigant (950 comments) says:

    @The Baron

    So whats wrong with Civil Unions again?

    Also do you know what an attention whore is?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Pete George (22,853 comments) says:

    So what rights does the CU not offer that Marriage does?

    It doesn’t offer an equal option of marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. David Garrett (6,447 comments) says:

    I am with KS on this one…and the funny thing is, from what I can work out [ insert usual cliche about some of my best friend...] very few gays actually care…it’s more an issue for the vocal minority of gays and a much larger number of small “l” liberals like our good host…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. adze (1,869 comments) says:

    Marriage is a social and cultural institution, not only a religious one; I support gay marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. RRM (9,468 comments) says:

    Shunter – you forgot to mention the homosexual steamroller dude!

    http://0.asset.soup.io/asset/1121/8864_25f9.jpeg

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. immigant (950 comments) says:

    @Pete George

    Not equal in what way? Last time I checked a partnership between a man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, are 3 diffirent, unequal things anyway.

    Why does it have to be equal, isn’t it all about legal representation as a citizen rather then anythign else?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. James Stephenson (2,034 comments) says:

    It doesn’t offer an equal option of marriage.

    But what, really, is the difference? As the Bard said: “A rose by any other name…”

    As far as I can see, a CU couple can’t adopt and have to make a change to their wills where marriage automatically overrides.

    So my question is: Is this actually about a back-door to gay adoption, because that would be much harder battle to win head-on?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. immigant (950 comments) says:

    LOL you said back-door in a gay context.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. David Garrett (6,447 comments) says:

    No-one can adopt kids in NZ these days anyway!! Not since we made solo motherhood a lifestyle choice…albeit a bloody poor one…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. James Stephenson (2,034 comments) says:

    FACEPALM

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. immigant (950 comments) says:

    I think It is more concerning that I’m a single white male with a job and my own house and I can’t adopt a child because society thinks there is a good chance I could be a sex offender. Way to make me feel like my country trusts and appreciates me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Aredhel777 (278 comments) says:

    “Conspiracy theorists on how this is all part of some sinister global agenda – we’re through the looking glass with the help of Aredhel777 again (the two for one!)”

    That is not what I said, but please continue to completely read stuff into what I said to try and pass me off as some weirdo fanatic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Psycho Milt (2,267 comments) says:

    All I’m doing is asking what has changed since 9 December 2004 when those supporting the Civil Union Act said that there was no intention to change the Marriage Act. Was that really their intention all along, and was couching it as they did dishonest?

    Well, so far neither Benson-Pope nor Carter has demanded the Marriage Act be amended, as far as I’ve noticed anyway. So the question of whether they were being dishonest back then doesn’t really come up. Of course, they were both politicians, and presumably they had their mouths open while they were saying those things…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Chuck Bird (4,683 comments) says:

    If somehow the percentage of homosexuals in NZ was doubled

    1 Would the rate of HIV be increased or decreased?

    2 Would the number of adolescent boys sexually abuse increase or decrease?

    Common sense says if you want more of an activity you promote it.

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

    SB, sorry, I can’t get that excited about defending this tradition against intruders. Even though I’ve been married for 45 years I’m happy to have other good people join the club whatever their sexual preferences. I’m more unhappy about those who debase it by failing to sustain the families and relationships they were responsible for.

    To be fair, I can appreciate your position.

    I have seen it too, Christian people that fiercely defend against gay marriage yet display some shocking attitudes towards their partners and children.

    In a sense, this issue was a war between left wing extremists and Christian extremists largely fought in the USA.
    It was always going to be winner takes all, and the Christian extremists lost.

    I guess society saw the Christian extremists as the uglier camp and is no longer prepared to accommodate their position.

    It don’t think that changes the reality of the situation though, to me there is nothing wrong with heterosexual only institutions, having them is simply not impinging on the rights of others.

    I now accept my position is a minority one and what will be will be, but I really think people should think long and hard about the logic some people choose to use on this issue, I think it is potentially quite dangerous and quite illogical.

    At the end of the day this issue is for the benefit of an extremely small group of people, and like others have said, it is hardly the pressing issue it is made out to be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. backster (2,081 comments) says:

    KEY should have saved this nonsensical point of view for a distraction the next time the media shit all over him over nothing such as the Banks affair.
    The churches should abandon the term marriage and come up with a different ceremony to celebrate the union of two Christians, call it perhaps “Christian Union.”

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

    Shunda barunda (2,057) Says:
    May 11th, 2012 at 12:14 pm

    No it is about access to the children.

    Children are our most precious asset and if homosexual people have full access to them through adoption then society has accepted them and their lifestyle choice, that is what homosexual marriage is about.
    Getting access to the children officially and therefore official acceptance of their lifestyle choice.

    It is also about dilution of the brand.
    Marriage is a brand, the central building block of society (should be), it works and kids are central to it and grow best there.
    Homosexual marriage dilutes the brand.

    That doesn’t get around the fact that it is not genetic (hardware) but choice – (software) and that is mutable.
    Homosexual and Bi people go against design, it is software not hardware.

    and Tom in the USA may well be correct in the reason this popped up just now!
    OOOh lets bust the fundies for a bit and forget what is really going on with National and their plans for NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Fletch (6,027 comments) says:

    Look, I don’t see why marriage is all of a sudden a “human right”; who says so?

    As I posted yesterday, recently the European Court of Human Rights stated that gay marriage is not a “human right”

    Same-sex marriages are not a human right, European judges have ruled.

    Their decision shreds the claim by ministers that gay marriage is a universal human right and that same-sex couples have a right to marry because their mutual commitment is just as strong as that of husbands and wives.

    The ruling was made by judges of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg following a case involving a lesbian couple in a civil partnership who complained the French courts would not allow them to adopt a child as a couple.

    They declared: ‘The European Convention on Human Rights does not require member states’ governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage.’

    I hear a lot here basically boiled down to, “why can’t people do what they want to do”?
    There is a reason that not everyone can get married – relatives, minors, an adult to a minor, adult to an animal, adult to many wives etc.

    I could argue, what about paedophiles rights? Why shouldn’t they get married to a minor, if the minor is willing?

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

    I could argue, what about paedophiles rights? Why shouldn’t they get married to a minor, if the minor is willing?

    Because a minor is, by definition, too young to consent.

    Is that really

    really

    really

    so difficult a difference to understand?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Psycho Milt (2,267 comments) says:

    Well, I’ve tried explaining it to him several times over the last few years, and again this afternoon on another thread, but he’s impervious to learning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Lawrence Hakiwai (119 comments) says:

    I think you getting a little ahead of youself here.

    There’s a huge difference between not opposing something and supporting it.

    There are a world of things that people don’t oppose but to actually support something you have to be quite specific.

    I see the Herald put 2 and 2 together and made 6 on the front page this morning and confused John Key’s “not opposed”comment with Barack Obama’s “support” of gay marriage.

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

    Chuck Bird:Common sense says if you want more of an activity you promote it.

    Allowing same-sex marriage isn’t the same thing as promoting homosexuality and in any case promoting homosexuality won’t change the numbers since sexual orientation isn’t a choice.

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

    Michael McKee:That doesn’t get around the fact that it is not genetic (hardware) but choice – (software) and that is mutable.
    Homosexual and Bi people go against design, it is software not hardware.

    Orientation is not mutable. It is hardware, not software.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Leaping Jimmy (15,954 comments) says:

    …in 30 years time people will find it strange that there was once a time when a same sex couple couldn’t get married

    Yes and in 30 years time marriage in people’s subconscious minds is no longer inextriably linked to the family unit but is now considered by most to be a mere formalising of a relationship not to have a family, but rather, simply based on sex. And for some reason no-one really understands, the “normal” family is now comprised of half-siblings each with a different father and those few females who’ve bothered to have children are now, on average, in their fourth “marriage” to a partner who isn’t the father of any of her children.

    Of course this sad and indeed, desparately serious state of affairs from a perspective of a healthy society just came about entirely by accident, it wasn’t engineered and no-one could have predicted it, argue the people who voted for gays to have the label back in 2013, because they thought that having a label was an important human wight, even tho back then, gays had all the other legal benefits, except the label. That’s the only thing they didn’t have, but the people who thought it was about human wights, didn’t have a problem with voting to disintegrate the family unit, in exchange for giving gays a label. That was a fair swap they argued, because they are always against discwimination, no matter what.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Manolo (13,378 comments) says:

    More noise and distraction from the real issue: the economy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Chuck Bird (4,683 comments) says:

    “Allowing same-sex marriage isn’t the same thing as promoting homosexuality and in any case promoting homosexuality won’t change the numbers since sexual orientation isn’t a choice.”

    The trouble with you liberals is that you mix up opinion with fact. When you can show me a blood test when they can say this person is hetero, this one one is a homo, this one is a bi and this one fancies sheep I will think you may have some credibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Leaping Jimmy (15,954 comments) says:

    More noise and distraction from the real issue: the economy.

    Not at all…

    Apologies to others for the off topic, if you want to go on, let’s do it on GD…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    Andrei (1,220) Says:
    May 11th, 2012 at 11:31 am

    Politicians are out of touch with reality

    Ironic statement of the week.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. SGA (815 comments) says:

    @Leaping Jimmy
    “Yes and in 30 years time marriage in people’s subconscious minds is no longer inextriably linked to the family unit but is now considered by most to be a mere formalising of a relationship not to have a family, but rather, simply based on sex.”

    What? Most people now often get married for “family” reasons (that’s a big driver); if all you want is sex, then getting married isn’t necessary (well… in most people’s case). That and love.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (2,152) Says:
    May 11th, 2012 at 6:19 pm

    The trouble with you liberals is that you mix up opinion with fact

    Runner up for Ironic statement of the week.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    When you can show me a blood test when they can say this person is hetero, this one one is a homo, this one is a bi and this one fancies sheep I will think you may have some credibility.

    Really? Blood test? So, you think genetic predetermination is in the blood?

    Now that really helps your credibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Leaping Jimmy (15,954 comments) says:

    What? Most people now often get married for “family” reasons (that’s a big driver); if all you want is sex, then getting married isn’t necessary (well… in most people’s case). That and love.

    SGA this is social engineering. It doesn’t matter what you or I think, it’s what the masses think subconsciously. That’s social engineering’s target audience, and it’s all subconscious, in that target group. It’s not rational as in, it’s not rationalised within the target group. As soon as it’s rationalised it becomes conscious, you see. Conscious thoughts cannot be engineered.

    The target group for this policy in case you wonder is the 90% of people who don’t understand politics and how it works. Only 1 in 10 of us know what politics does in society and in our lives, over time. It’s not that the 90% are thick far from it, IQ is based on the Bell standard distribution curve and there are many in the 90% who are extremely bright. It’s a question of to what they direct their minds.

    If you think social engineering does not exist or doesn’t work, then consider the leftening of the NZ political mindset and consider how that has changed since 1984, when Lange took over from Muldoon. While demographics have a large influence in terms of the urbanisation vs rural which has taken place, it doesn’t explain the entire extent of the extremely significant shift in mindset. This is why all the media channels are full of screaming raving lefty fuckwits with only the occasional conservative voice, for example. It wasn’t like that, before. And it is like it is now, because of social engineering. That’s what it is and it happens like a boil the frog, you don’t even notice it happening. Well, most don’t. But if you compared the political “centre” in 1984 and ran exactly the same poll in 2012, you would find a significant shift leftwards, and that is social engineering. And so is gay marriage. You watch it happen over the next few decades if and when it comes in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Johnboy (14,998 comments) says:

    Hooray!!! Won’t be long before Ewes can have a lovely white woolly dress and trot up the aisle with a lovely little blue garter on their shapely little shanks for their big day! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Leaping Jimmy (15,954 comments) says:

    Hooray!!! Won’t be long before Ewes can have a lovely white woolly dress and trot up the aisle with a lovely little blue garter on their shapely little shanks for their big day!

    I’m not sure gays will necessarily want to be politically lumped in together with the bestiality when the marriage act amendment goes through Johnboy but I’m looking forward to their reaction when such is announced one night.

    I’m hoping indeed fully expecting all the lefty journos will have miles and miles of footage explaining just how very happy those four-legged people really are, now that all the hateful discwimination is finally, finally, over.

    If I was Walrus, I’d do some forward booking with Meteria right now just in case Campbell snaffles her like he normally does, lest he be stuck with boring old Wussell on the big night.

    And I’d make sure I didn’t invite Chauvell at all. I bet he’d be real bitchy about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Johnboy (14,998 comments) says:

    Well Jimmy its a bit discriminatory pushing for serious amendments to the marriage act without including folks of alternative proclivities!

    Typical of them Gays.

    Only consider themselves they do darling! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Leaping Jimmy (15,954 comments) says:

    Only consider themselves they do darling!

    Yeah fuck em Johnboy. Or not, as the case may be, depending on how the wind’s blowing or already has blown, etc etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Johnboy (14,998 comments) says:

    Or if they bend over forward for you LJ! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Leaping Jimmy (15,954 comments) says:

    P.S. I really hate this recent PC psychobabble need to explain oneself to the n’th degree lest one be taken as discwiminating against someone or other, all the fucking time. Instead of just saying it and just walking away, leaving it there, lying on the floor, like a still-warm bloody carcus of stinking putrid mess for someone else to deal with, like I used to do.

    I didn’t used to have to do this in Auckland Johnboy. WTF has happened? Is there something poofy in the water?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. nasska (10,680 comments) says:

    If the fundies are against gay sex they should be pushing for gay marriage. After all, marriage between heterosexuals usually knocks the top off a promising sex life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Leaping Jimmy (15,954 comments) says:

    If the fundies are against gay sex they should be pushing for gay marriage.

    I’m against gay sex and gay marriage but I’m not a fundy nasska.

    What should I do?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Johnboy (14,998 comments) says:

    I’ve never done a lap of the Beehive pool LJ so couldn’t possibly comment.

    But I suspect you are quite correct! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Johnboy (14,998 comments) says:

    Nasska! :)

    Been married for a while have you? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. nasska (10,680 comments) says:

    LJ

    ….”What should I do?”…..

    Strewth! You picked the wrong person to offer advice on matters theological.

    Perhaps you should follow the old adage, “if you can’t beat them, join them”……(the fundies I mean).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. nasska (10,680 comments) says:

    Johnboy

    It shows I guess?

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

    Chuck:The trouble with you liberals is that you mix up opinion with fact.

    No, that’s what you keep doing Chuck.

    When you can show me a blood test when they can say this person is hetero, this one one is a homo, this one is a bi and this one fancies sheep I will think you may have some credibility.

    If sexual orientation has a biological basis it doesn’t follow that there would be a blood test for it. And even if there was, we don’t need to wait for it. We already have evidence that orientation is biological. You need to stop reading books written by NARTH crackpots.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Johnboy (14,998 comments) says:

    Its all such fun tonight, since I arrived, but I must go cause my favourite TV show is on UKTV at 7.30. “New Tricks”

    My favourite star is on, Amanda Redman! :)

    http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=amanda+redman&hl=en&prmd=imvnso&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=zL-sT_eVDoeSiAeav-ilCQ&sqi=2&ved=0CG8QsAQ&biw=1512&bih=852

    She is so much taller than my usual sexy blondes! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Leaping Jimmy (15,954 comments) says:

    Strewth! You picked the wrong person to offer advice on matters theological.

    Really? Normally it’s the ignorant unbelievers who offer the most profound insights. That’s why we Christians want to talk to you guys so very much, all the time.

    If sexual orientation has a biological basis it doesn’t follow that there would be a blood test for it.

    Exactly. Porn would make a much better test for that sort of thing, one would imagine.

    Instead of having those silly silhouette things on the bathroom doors they should have a porn pic of the opposite sex. Then one could really tell who’se who in the zoo, couldn’t one. Confusion eliminated. So there!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Johnboy (14,998 comments) says:

    If anyone is watching Richard Briers did it. Mad as a snake!

    Oh I luv pommy TV! :)

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

    Looking into the future (as I suspect gay ‘marriage’ will come to pass in New Zealand), and as a Catholic, the eventual collision of church and state will be interesting. I say this because, with all due respect, the other mainstream churches are pretty flimsy on this issue (and the Pentecostals’ biblical fundamentalism means they tend not to engage rationally in this debate and are written off by any media that actually still think) whereas the Catholics are actually more steadfast in their beliefs.

    When one considers the vehemency of the gay lobby, I cannot see that they’ll be happy with just gay ‘marriage’. They will demand that Catholic schools do not receive funding if they insist on teaching homosexuality is a disorder. Maybe even seek to shut down certain groups and certain priests. If this did occur (and maybe it won’t), who would blink first? Frankly, after 2000 years I cannot see the church blinking first. They’d chose prison first.

    It will be interesting to watch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Chuck Bird (4,683 comments) says:

    “We already have evidence that orientation is biological.”

    Show me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Chuck Bird (4,683 comments) says:

    Dr NE Whitehead, PhD is a research scientist. He has a PhD in bio chemistry.

    http://www.mygenes.co.nz/index.html

    His honest view is that there may in some cases be a predisposition to homosexual behaviour these are far less important than environmental factors.

    What are you qualifications Chiz?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Johnboy (14,998 comments) says:

    Dear Chucky.

    Dr. Neil Whitehead and his wife Briar are as mad as a pair of Christian snakes that have just bitten each others pagan tails.

    I suggest you seek further enlightenment of the homosexual environment from less intense folks! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    Leaping Jimmy (10,530) Says:
    May 11th, 2012 at 7:23 pm

    I’m against gay sex and gay marriage but I’m not a fundy nasska.

    What should I do?

    Easy. Don’t have gay sex and don’t get a gay marriage.

    There! Wasn’t that hard at all, was it now?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. RRM (9,468 comments) says:

    Well owning a Honda’s not fucken natural either, I’m sure environment plays a big part in making people choose to do that.

    Does that mean there should be a law against it or we should restrict those people’s rights more than anyone elses?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Leaping Jimmy (15,954 comments) says:

    Does that mean there should be a law against it or we should restrict those people’s rights more than anyone elses?

    If there isn’t a law against it already RRM then WTF have we been thinking, all these years? And of course we should restrict them, in the same way and for the same reason any loving parent restricts a small child from burning themselves on a hot element.

    You know it’s quite tiresome being the only sensible voice on a thread sometimes. I mean crikey, what the heck is wrong with everyone else? Are they all simply mental?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Rufus (621 comments) says:

    Chiz, sorry for the hack cut-and-paste job, and for not including all the references, (I’ve got them if you want to read more) but if you’re actually interested, can I refer you to:

    In 1991, J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard published a study that examined identical and fraternal twin brothers and adopted brothers in an effort to establish a genetic link to homosexuality.

    Fifty-two percent of the identical twins were reportedly homosexual, while only 22 percent of fraternal twins fell into the same category.

    But since identical twins have identical genetic material, the fact that nearly half of the identical twins were heterosexual effectively refutes the idea that homosexuality has a genetic basis.

    “This finding alone argues for the enormous importance of nongenetic factors influencing homosexuality,” writes Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, “because … in order for something to be genetically determined, as opposed to merely influenced, the genetic heritability would need to approach 100 percent.”

    Satinover, a psychiatrist, notes that “identical twins reared together share more significant environmental influences than nonidentical twins reared together,” and that narcissism, a key component of homosexuality, is more likely among identical twins who “grow up with mirror images of themselves.”

    In his book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Dr. Jeffrey Satinover writes:

    ” We will see later the falsity of activists’ repeated assertions that homosexuality is immutable. They seek to create the impression that science has settled these questions, but it most certainly has not. Instead, the changes that have occurred in both public and professional opinion have resulted from politics, pressure, and public relations.”

    “There is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory. … [T]he appeal of current biologic explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data.”

    - William Byne and Bruce Parsons, “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised,” Archives of General Psychiatry, Vol. 50, March 1993: 228-239.

    (bold and italics mine)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Leaping Jimmy (15,954 comments) says:

    Rufus, does this mean gays are mental, or they aren’t? I’m finding it hard to tell.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Rufus (621 comments) says:

    Don’t know Jimmy.

    I was just trying to dispel the “the science is settled” nonsense that many here assume.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    Rufus,

    Pillard RC, Bailey JM (1998). Human sexual orientation has a heritable component. Hum Biol. 1998 Apr;70(2):347-65. PMID 9549243

    Pillard RC, Weinrich JD (1986). Evidence of familial nature of male homosexuality. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1986 Aug;43(8):808-12. PMID 3729676

    and

    He and biologist James D. Weinrich co-authored a paper which found that homosexuality runs in some families.[5] Pillard feels this is some of his most significant work, and that paper won the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality Hugo Beigel Award for the best paper published in The Journal of Sex Research.

    Pillard is also well known for a series of studies he coauthored with J. Michael Bailey, which examined the rate of concordance of sexual identity among monozygotic twins, dizygotic twins of the same sex, non-twin siblings of the same sex, and adoptive siblings of the same sex. In all studies they found rates of concordance variantly consistent with the hypothesis that homosexuality has a significant genetic component.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    Rufus (390) Says:
    May 11th, 2012 at 11:11 pm

    Don’t know Jimmy.

    I was just trying to dispel the “the science is settled” nonsense that many here assume.

    lol. What a joke.

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

    Resistance to Gay marriage boils down to the Religious feeling all butt hurt at the use of “their” word and institution, Marriage,being used to describe the abomination of gay unions.

    Well newsflash….it NEVER was YOUR term and institution to start with. It long preceded your fictional zombie and included all forms of partnering up…including same sex ones….Learn some-fucking history and remove your pointy heads from your over puckered pious arseholes….geez.

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

    @ The Scorned

    Take some valium pal. Yes, you are correct, marriage pre-dates Jesus Christ. I’d note though that no credible Christians, certainly not the Catholic Church, claim that Christians invented marriage.

    So, apart from your prejudiced view of what you think Christianity is, and Christians are, who is saying that Christianity invented marriage?

    It’s like you’ve lined up all your ammo, but you’re shooting at the wrong target dick-head. Why don’t you go “learn some fucking history” too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Fletch (6,027 comments) says:

    Well, I’ve tried explaining it to him several times over the last few years, and again this afternoon on another thread, but he’s impervious to learning.

    PM, and you still didn’t answer my question – how is the sexual desire of a paedophile (even if he never acts upon it), different from that of a homosexuals desire? Why is one an “orientation”, and the other not?

    No one will answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Rufus (621 comments) says:

    eszett – So you found some other studies.

    Proves my point that the science isn’t settled at all. They’re still searching.

    Did you actually read the Bailey study?

    1. “In 1991, J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard published a study that examined identical and fraternal twin brothers and adopted brothers in an effort to establish a genetic link to homosexuality. Fifty-two percent of the identical twins were reportedly homosexual, while only 22 percent of fraternal twins fell into the same category. But since identical twins have identical genetic material, the fact that nearly half of the identical twins were heterosexual effectively
    refutes the idea that homosexuality has a genetic basis.

    “This finding alone argues for the enormous importance of nongenetic factors influencing
    homosexuality,” writes Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, “because … in order for something to be
    genetically determined, as opposed to merely influenced, the genetic heritability would need to
    approach 100 percent.”

    Satinover, a psychiatrist, notes that “identical twins reared together share more significant environmental influences than nonidentical twins reared together,” and that narcissism, a key component of homosexuality, is more likely among identical twins who “grow up with mirror images of themselves.” (Italics in original.) In his analysis of the medical evidence purportedly supporting a biological cause of homosexuality,

    Dr. Byne noted other twin studies: “Without knowing what developmental experiences contribute to sexual orientation … the
    effects of common genes and common environments are difficult to disentangle. Resolving this issue requires studies of twins raised apart.”

    Other physicians have also criticized the study for overvaluing the genetic influence. Dr. Byne’s arguments might lead some activists to label him a “homophobe.” He is, in reality, quite the contrary. Byne readily advocates societal acceptance of homosexuality and “gay rights,” but nevertheless concludes, “Most of the links in the chain of reasoning from biology to social policy [regarding homosexuality], do not hold up under scrutiny.”

    Bailey conducted another study in 1999, published in the March 2000 issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, which actually showed less possible genetic influence on homosexuality than the first twins study. He sent a questionnaire to the entire Australian Twin Registry. Only three pairs of identical male twins were both homosexual out of a total of 27 in which at least one was homosexual. Of the 16 fraternal male twins, none of the pairs was both
    homosexual. Bailey found similar results for lesbians.

    2. In May 2000, the American Psychiatric Association issued a Fact Sheet, “Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues,” which includes this statement:

    “Currently, there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality.
    However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.”

    I’ve got more if you’d like to read them.

    OOPS. Nope, science not settled yet.

    Joke yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Fletch (6,027 comments) says:

    eszett, some people are inclined toward alcoholism as well. It runs in some families. Does that mean we should encourage it? The same can be said for homosexuality. Just because someone is inclined or genetically predisposed toward some addiction or another is no reason to encourage it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    Rufus (391) Says:
    May 12th, 2012 at 12:26 am

    eszett – So you found some other studies.

    No Rufus, those were the studies by people YOU quoted. Pillard and Bailey.
    The conclusion is vastly different to what you had in mind.

    @Fletch, if you think that sexual orientation is an illness, then you should discourage heterosexuality as well. Besides there is nothing harmful in homosexuality, it’s just that you don’t like it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. markra (200 comments) says:

    I think it is hilarious all this talk of Gay marriage. I personally can’t see a problem with it, if that’s going to do it for them.

    I think it will be really interesting of what the marriage vowels will be:

    I now declare you Husband & Husband, Bum Chum & Bum Chum, He Male and She Male. :-)

    It’s hard to keep a straight face about this.

    Hey let them marry. I feel sorry for the poor children they will eventually be allowed to adopt and how other kids will treat them at school.

    I can just hear it, “Your mummy is a man”, “your parents are queers”. Kids say it how it is to them.

    You can legislate all you want, and try and normalize all you want. But it isn’t ever going to be normal lifestyle choice.

    The ones I feel sorry for and who will be hurt the most will be the children. that are inevitably adopted There of course are also children hurt living in abusive hetero families.

    This Gay marriage thing is about Gays trying to make society treat them as normal. I really feel for Gay people, because it must be a difficult life .

    People pretending to treat you like you are normal when really they treat you far from it.

    You can’t stop people from thinking the way they do and trying to legislate won’t fix that.

    Homosexuals are I am sure accidents of nature, a minority. They obviously, from an evolutionist point of view can not add anything to the gene pool by being unable to reproduce by the their sexual preference.

    I am sure that there are a lot of very nice and kind GAY people who don’t deserve the treatment they have to endure.

    I don’t think there will ever be an easy answer to their differential treatment and Gay marriage won’t fix that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Daigotsu (450 comments) says:

    “PM, and you still didn’t answer my question – how is the sexual desire of a paedophile (even if he never acts upon it), different from that of a homosexuals desire? Why is one an “orientation”, and the other not?

    No one will answer.”

    Because the paedophile’s preference is for a type of sex that doesn’t involve consenting adult human beings, and the homosexual’s is for a type that does.

    BOOM. Answered.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. markra (200 comments) says:

    ezsett, you are an idiot.

    A poor trendy Gay promoter.

    If you take the majority scientific view that Evolution is correct, then unfortunately Homosexuality is an illness, or a mistake of nature.

    Think about it.

    From the evolutionary paradigm, heterosexual sex(male s female) is made for the reproduction of the species so that humans can procreate. How can that be an illness. If you take your logic, that would be saying an act that reproduces the species is an illness.

    I bet you thank your lucky stars that your parents were not homosexuals otherwise you wouldn’t be commenting on here.

    Now go back to your closet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. markra (200 comments) says:

    @Daigotsu

    Talking of the age of consent.

    That is a “legal” definition that is relevant to the context of NZ and other westernised nations.

    In other cultures people marry have sex, take on responsibility at ages that we would define them as children.

    So in those context children could be consenting.

    Children don’t miraculously have the cognitive ability to consent on the day they hit 16. That is only a legal definition of consent.

    Right or wrong is a matter of opinion.

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

    EWS….. So, apart from your prejudiced view of what you think Christianity is, and Christians are, who is saying that Christianity invented marriage?

    Open your eyes Christ-tard…..that’s what they have been claiming since this issue arose. They say marriage is originally a religious institution when it was no such thing. The Religions adopted it to suit their own needs…they didn’t invent it.

    Now piss off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. markra (200 comments) says:

    @eszett

    In case you didn’t get what I was saying, I was answering your poorly considered answer to Fletch, which unfortunately underscores your inability to provide a logical arguments and instead just spout off the first stupid thing that comes into your head.

    Sorry to be mean to you, but hence why I have treated your outbursts with such scorn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. markra (200 comments) says:

    @ Scorned

    Good point. Who cares who invented marriage.

    You could point out to Christians, that if they truly are Christian they will not judge other people. It is for their God to do that and not them. Do they remember the words, “let he without sin throw the first stone”. Christ aprently said that.

    Gay marriage is not an issue for Religion, but in the secular domain.

    As long as any law that is drafted does not make it an offence to not marry a gay couple. That is of course religions free right to not have to take part in such a ceremony. Just as for example a Catholic may not want to Marry a Muslim couple in their Church or vice versa.

    Freedom works both ways.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. markra (200 comments) says:

    I think the bottom line here is.

    You have the right to do what you want as long as you don’t impinge on someone elses rights.

    How would/could legalizing Gay marriage impinge on someone else rights???

    I don’t see any argument above showing how it would.

    The adoption of children is another argument all together and would come down to what type of environment would be most beneficial to the child.

    If it came down to a choice between:(AS AN EXAMPLE)

    a Hetero family where the father is sexually abusing and beating the children

    and

    2 Kind and loving gay men

    I would choose the GAY men any day.

    It comes down to what is the better environment for the child.

    That’s an argument for another day and one , that if the Gay marriage law passes , would need careful consideration.

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

    Markra….very good points.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Chuck Bird (4,683 comments) says:

    “Besides there is nothing harmful in homosexuality, it’s just that you don’t like it.”

    Tell that to some innocent woman married to a closet bi sexual.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Chuck Bird (4,683 comments) says:

    Markra if you drop me an email at chuckbirdnz@gmail I am sure we could share some research.

    Cheers
    Chuck

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (2,156) Says:
    May 12th, 2012 at 8:10 am

    Markra if you drop me an email at chuckbirdnz@gmail I am sure we could share some research.

    yeah, you two better to some…. “research”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    markra (103) Says:
    May 12th, 2012 at 1:42 am

    ezsett, you are an idiot.

    A poor trendy Gay promoter.

    If you take the majority scientific view that Evolution is correct, then unfortunately Homosexuality is an illness, or a mistake of nature.

    Think about it.

    From the evolutionary paradigm, heterosexual sex(male s female) is made for the reproduction of the species so that humans can procreate. How can that be an illness. If you take your logic, that would be saying an act that reproduces the species is an illness.

    I bet you thank your lucky stars that your parents were not homosexuals otherwise you wouldn’t be commenting on here.

    Now go back to your closet.

    marka, I am not sure whether you are trying hard to be an idiot or whether it just comes naturally to you. Maybe it’s hereditary.

    It was fletch who claimed that homosexuality was an “illness”. And so did you.

    But if you would know anything about evolutionary theory (which obviously you don’t, otherwise you wouldn’t make such a silly and nonsensical claim), there are a number of hypothesis that explain how homosexuality can be beneficial trait that is passed on.

    Just on example, but I am sure you can find more for yourself if you are interested.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html

    Homosexuality vs heterosexuality is no more a choice or an illness than lefthandedness is vs righthandedness.

    I am so sorry that my response to fletch went over your head. I’ll try and use more simple analogies (no pun intended) for you the next time. As you have shown with your few recent posts, you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

    I hope you enjoy your ….”research”… with your buddy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    markra (103) Says:
    May 12th, 2012 at 2:22 am

    I think the bottom line here is.

    You have the right to do what you want as long as you don’t impinge on someone elses rights.

    How would/could legalizing Gay marriage impinge on someone else rights???

    I don’t see any argument above showing how it would.

    The adoption of children is another argument all together and would come down to what type of environment would be most beneficial to the child.

    If it came down to a choice between:(AS AN EXAMPLE)

    a Hetero family where the father is sexually abusing and beating the children

    and

    2 Kind and loving gay men

    I would choose the GAY men any day.

    It comes down to what is the better environment for the child.

    That’s an argument for another day and one , that if the Gay marriage law passes , would need careful consideration.

    And then, on the other hand, you write something remarkably sensible.

    You are a truly conflicted personality

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Griff (6,814 comments) says:

    Catholic Church

    A historical hot bed for the indoctrination of bum foolery into the population by the priesthood
    seems to be the most vehement opposition of same sex marriage
    In till the church from the ineffable word of god the poop down excommunicate their membership of all those complicate in protecting pedo priests from the full might of the law
    They really should refrain from enforcing there fucked up beliefs on the world

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Fletch (6,027 comments) says:

    It was fletch who claimed that homosexuality was an “illness”. And so did you.

    eszett, in fact, it was in the List of Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association until 1974. And do you know why it was changed? Was it because they found new medical evidence? No. It was purely because of harassing and intimidation by gay activists for 3 years. It was purely political.

    “It was never a medical decision—and that’s why I think the action came so fast…It was a political move.”

    “That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.”
    -Barbara Gittings, Same-gender sex activist

    Then the vote came in 1974 –

    On April 9, 1974, results of the vote were announced. Only 10,555 of the 17,905 APA members had voted in the election. The results were as follows,

    Total APA members eligible to vote: 17,905
    Number of APA members that actually voted: 10,555
    Number of members that “Abstained”: 367
    Number of “ No” votes-votes to keep “homosexuality” in the DSM as a mental disorder: 3,810
    Number of “Yes” votes-votes to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM as a mental disorder: 5,854

    It should be noted that the number of “Yes” (5,854) made up only 32.7 percent of the total membership of the APA. Only slightly less than one-third of the APA’s membership approved the change.

    Four years later, the Medical Journal Aspects of Human Sexuality reported a survey showing “69 percent of psychiatrists disagreed with the vote and still considered homosexuality a disorder.”

    The American Psychological Association recently published a study favorable to pedophilia – you know, child molestation. If you call it “Adult-child sex,” it doesn’t sound as bad. Caving to public pressure, APA executive director Raymond Fowler later denounced it as “reprehensible.” Really? For how long? Then why was this trash published in the APA journal in the first place? Oh yeah, because they thought they could get away with that, too.

    You just wait. Child-adult sex will be next.

    Read the detailed history yourself – https://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/homosexual-activists-intimidate-american-psychiatric-association-into-removing-homosexuality-from-list-of-disorders/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Fletch (6,027 comments) says:

    Griff, the abuse by priests was terrible, to be sure. Of course the media shies away from the fact that most of the abuse was homosexual in nature.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Fletch (6,027 comments) says:

    Because the paedophile’s preference is for a type of sex that doesn’t involve consenting adult human beings, and the homosexual’s is for a type that does.

    BOOM. Answered.

    Daigotsu, how does that factor into it at all? Still doesn’t answer the question – how is the paedophile’s sexual desire not an orientation (even if he never acts on it), but the desire of a homosexual is an orientation? Maybe the paedophile was born that way; has a genetic predisposition to desire in that way. That is the reasoning people have been suggesting regarding homosexuality isn’t it? Why doesn’t it apply to paedophiles as well?

    It comes down to two choices – either they are BOTH orientations, or NEITHER are. Which choice do you support?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. markra (200 comments) says:

    eszett

    Can you explain to us all how homosexuality adds to the survival of the species? In evolutionary terms?

    U are high on insults to others, but low on actual evidence or coherent argument.

    You have provided no substance to any of your claims.

    Now that you are out of the closet we can see how stupid you are.

    Let me guess, you are likley inexperienced, probably early 20s TRENDY, left idealist, probably studied at uni, but no real experience of adult life. Likley you have no children, and live some type of alternative relationship. I would love to see a photo of you.

    I would guess, that you were maybe an outcast at or not in the click in school which explains your sensitivity and angry outbursts, which reeks of an inferiority complex, to protect minorities.

    You likely attend all Gay rights marches and are very active on all trendy causes.

    Just to remind you, this not a personal beat up on homosexuals or lesbians, just ignorance..

    I hope you actually do meet or mix with average ordinary people and leave your strange lifestyle behind soon.

    After all we all have to grow up some day. Of course some don’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. markra (200 comments) says:

    @fletch

    Good on you fletch.

    you are very right. You know your stuff

    Its a case of changing medicine and science to suit ideology.

    The Gay movement is very strong.
    I don’t have a problem with Gay people but the Gay movement are dishonest bunch of Cretans.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. markra (200 comments) says:

    @eszett

    I have a experiment for you to prove your view of homosexuality being beneficial to the species.

    How about a get a gay Male or Female pair, Married, usually that means monogamous .
    That’s usually the point of marriage and the subject being discussed.

    Isolate them away from any other human beings. Feed and provide them with all the necessities of life.

    See how many offspring they produce.
    (no strap-ons or access to sperm banks, or adoptions or any other devices allowed

    Would be very interested to see your results and supporting arguments that prove the benefits of homosexuality to procreation.

    Especially as we are talking about Marriage which is usually intended to involve a monogamous relationship.

    I note in your link the argument contends that homosexuality occurs across species. This does not prove it is beneficial. Birth defects also appear across species as well and that does not mean that they are beneficial.

    Now remember no cheating now, you aren’t allowed any heterosexual relationships to happen that may contaminate the experiment and skew the results.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Chuck Bird (4,683 comments) says:

    “Besides there is nothing harmful in homosexuality, it’s just that you don’t like it.”

    Tell that to some innocent woman married to a closet bi sexual.

    eszett. It is easy to autonomously dish out insults. It is harder to engage in rational debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. markra (200 comments) says:

    @eszett

    No not a conflicted personality.

    I am not, as I am sure most people are not interested ,what Homosexuals do in the privacy of their own home, or whether they marry.

    However I am pissed when stupid people like you and the GAY movement try to normalize and scientifically backup the benefits of your chosen sexual behavior to us.

    To even try to state that there are benefits to the species is outright absurd. I am sure there are a lot of gay scientists out there who will push their own studies to try and support the lifestyle choice.

    It’s no more beneficial, than cross dressing, masturbation, sex with inanimate objects, sex with blowup dolls. I read in the news recently, (don’t know if it is true) that a man in Asia married his pillow. Good on him

    They are all life choices which don’t hurt other people.

    But to claim homosexuality assists in the survival of the species more that these other sexual behaviors or fetishs is evidence of your self delusion.

    I would take a guess that not one person on this earth was the result of a homosexual act.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Chuck Bird (4,683 comments) says:

    “Dr. Neil Whitehead and his wife Briar are as mad as a pair of Christian snakes that have just bitten each others pagan tails.

    I suggest you seek further enlightenment of the homosexual environment from less intense folks!”

    Johnboy

    Have you heard of Dr Ben Carson?

    http://carsonscholars.org/dr-ben-carson/general-information

    Do you dismiss his views because of his religious beliefs?

    How about Melanie Phillips? She is strongly opposed to homosexual activists diddling with the minds of young children?
    She is not Christian but Jewish. Does that make her more or less credible?

    Have you discussed this with your ewes? I assume you have worked out one ba means no and two or more means yes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. markra (200 comments) says:

    One thing I have forgotten to mention.

    All Gay men who live in a loving Gay relationships do not have to necessarily have sexual relations.

    I have heard of Men who love each other on a non sexual level who decide to be committed to each other but abhor the thought of sexual part of it.

    I note that there has been a lot of talk about homosexual sexual acts(anal sex and oral sex) but that does not necessarily need to happen in a GAY relationship.

    Hey live and let live.

    Like I said above, if a man marries his pillow, or maybe even a basketball, I may think it strange and weird, but hey that is his choice.

    Who am I to tell him what he should do? He not hurting anyone else.

    But please don’t tell me it has evolutionary benefits.

    (I wonder if he named it Wilson)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. wat dabney (3,672 comments) says:

    markra,

    Can you explain to us all how homosexuality adds to the survival of the species? In evolutionary terms?

    It is broadly held that evolution acts to further the continuance of genes rather than individuals or even species; yes, the Selfish Gene. Although one can debate forever how far this pressure might extend to the group.

    So your question doesn’t necessarily make any sense on its own terms.

    It is recognised, however, that female relatives of homosexual men are more fecund; so the argument is that this particular gene is spreading itself very nicely thank you.

    Fletch,

    You just wait. Child-adult sex will be next.

    Yes, Fletch actually wrote that.

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

    Homosexuality vs heterosexuality is no more a choice or an illness than lefthandedness is vs righthandedness.

    That is absolute crap.

    Being left handed or right handed is hardly an issue for species survival, and even then, you can train yourself to be left or right handed!

    It is absolutely undeniable that some people choose to engage in homosexual acts for no other reason than it tickles, one doesn’t have to be gay to enjoy sexual stimulation, all one has to do is ‘be into it’.

    From a biological perspective, homosexuality is an anomaly, it is as simple as that. Should we be nasty to anomalies? probably not, however, almost all other species are in fact nasty to the respective anomalies in their populations. Often all it takes is is for an animal to have a mark that others don’t and it will be singled out, shunned, or even killed.
    This is how evolution works.

    So before you claim that homosexuality is beneficial for the species, also realise that others, through the same logic, can claim that shunning homosexuals is completely consistent with evolutionary biology and is quite natural.

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

    Like I said above, if a man marries his pillow, or maybe even a basketball, I may think it strange and weird, but hey that is his choice.

    No, actually it isn’t only his choice.

    Marriage is an institution that I value and have signed up to (quite literally) it is an institution that is currently defined as an expression of heterosexual relationships.

    Allowing basketballs to attain the same status as my wife is not exactly part of the current definition.

    Just like an old historic building that people have protected for generations, I want to protect marriage. I don’t want people to redefine the architecture of the old building, particularly when there is a nice new office block next door called “civil unions”.

    This is about taking the tradition of heterosexuals, it is not about human rights.

    Magpies like to collect shiny things, and so does the gay lobby, unfortunately for me, they are going to take something I value and they are enabled by simplistic “ought thinking” to do so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. markra (200 comments) says:

    @Chuck

    Good point Chuck

    While a pair of loving Gay men may do a better job of child rearing than a violent child abusing hetero family, I think it would be argued that the the Gay parents would be not ideal either.

    Especially as children often get their first views of male female relationships from their parents.

    Homosexual parenting is largely an unknown risk and as said above not ideal

    I think it is unknown territory and it may happen in the future.

    AS usual it will be the children that suffer as a result of the adults grand social experiments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Scott (1,708 comments) says:

    Here is a question for you good folks. Who said at the Saddleback Church in 2008?- “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian . . . it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. markra (200 comments) says:

    @ Shunda

    Totally understand your sentiments.

    Personally, my own opinion, I think Gay marriage is ridiculous, it’s all about a small group of people who are obviously not normal trying in vain to be normal. It never will be thankfully.

    Unfortunately what you believe , I may not and what I believe you may not. Who is right and who is wrong, who knows.

    I guess if there is a supreme being, only they know.

    But as we live in a free society we have to allow people to have their own freedoms whether it be to marry their basket ball.

    I don’t think it detracts from the sanctity you have in your marriage. I think that is excellent and wonderful and don’t believe you should view other peoples strange views a threat to what you have.

    However, as I said I totally see how you want to protect marriage and how you could find it offensive.

    If you are a religious man for example, you may have heard of the(Judeo Christian story as an example) of lot living in Sodom. He did not try and force his will on others but reluctantly tolerated their depraved acts. It was his God who sorted things out.

    Maybe you could take a leaf out of that. Tolerance does not equal agreement in other peoples lifestyles.

    But we should all have the right to choose for ourselves and receive our own consequence.
    Cause an effect.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. KevinH (1,131 comments) says:

    @Fletch
    I think you are confusing orientation with preferences.Peadophilia is a sexual preference, not an orientation, in much the same way as sado masochism or bestiality is a preference. Paedophiles can be either heterosexual or homosexual in their desires or both, whereas homosexuals are homosexuals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. markra (200 comments) says:

    @ Shunda (cont)

    For me freedom to choose is a better ideal rather than say some despot ruled by some Totalitarian regime, who dictates what you are allowed to think. ie. the Taliban or some Draconian Theocracy.

    Remember it cuts both ways. If you happen to be living in one of these terrible regimes and your beliefs run counter to what you are supposed to, life could be a lot worse.

    A Tolerant society is better than an intolerant one any day.

    You just have to put up with the inconvenience of other people conflicting views. But then sometime we may learn from those other views.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. markra (200 comments) says:

    @Kevin

    re: pedophilia

    Do you honestly think that Pedophiles deliberately carry on a choice despite incarceration , continual treatment and persecution.

    No way, it’s an orientation just the same as Homosexuality.

    You ask any one in the sexual rehabilitation field whether this is a preference.

    They use all type of therapies to link pain to sexual thoughts children to get a change in ((prefernce))

    It’s so persistent that these people need to have ongoing treatment and often that never works.

    Stop deluding yourself

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Fletch (6,027 comments) says:

    @Fletch
    I think you are confusing orientation with preferences.Peadophilia is a sexual preference, not an orientation, in much the same way as sado masochism or bestiality is a preference. Paedophiles can be either heterosexual or homosexual in their desires or both, whereas homosexuals are homosexuals.

    Kevin, well that is the heart of the argument isn’t it.
    Whether homosexuality itself is a sexual preference. Some say it is, some say it isn’t. Some say it is caused by outside factors when the child is growing up, some say it is genetic. The same can be said for paedophilia.

    BOTH are sexual desires, and therefore the same arguments can be made for or against both being inherent.
    I do not see the difference.

    How do you know that one is a so-called “orientation” and the other not?

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

    Markra, I can accept your angle on this and ultimately realise I am now in the minority on this issue.

    What I don’t accept is when people call me a bigot for holding the position I do. To me, the fact they do this is actually exposing their true agenda, to dominate rather than ‘free’ people.

    This is what I find so disturbing.

    The arguments for gay marriage are often extremely weak and completely lacking in logic, if it wasn’t for the rabid fundamentalists sinking to an even lower level, I don’t think the gay lobby would have won this one.

    The argument against gay marriage should never have been a religious one, it just didn’t need to be, but likewise, the fight for human rights was never supposed to be about pointing at something someone else has and saying “I want it and if you don’t give it to me you’re a monstrous bigot”.

    There is no valid reason that marriage shouldn’t just stay the way it has always been.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. KevinH (1,131 comments) says:

    @marka
    Okay, I know I am out on a limb on that one. Far from being deluded I have observed paedophile’s fully functioning in heterosexual relationships and could not connect their sexual preferences to an orientation because it would be contradictory.

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

    Why is my comment awaiting moderation? WTF DPF??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. markra (200 comments) says:

    @Fletch

    Good call Fletch.

    In answer to your question. The reason is because it is expedient to call Homosexuality an orientation, and those things we don’t like are not an orientation.

    It’s called personal Bias. We make up the science, and exlude the evidence to support and strengthen our preexisting views.

    Its a normal human trait but clouds any possibility of moving closer to a real Answer.

    The homosexual question is political and social only. It has nothing to do with Biology or Science.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. markra (200 comments) says:

    @Shunda

    Can’t see your next comment. But if it is , that’s an example of what not living in a free society is like.

    I am glad we live in one.

    Hopefully?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. markra (200 comments) says:

    to moderator(aka censor)

    Let Shunda have his say otherwise you are not providing free speech.

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

    I’ll try and post it again:

    Markra, I can accept your angle on this and ultimately realise I am now in the minority on this issue.

    What I don’t accept is when people call me a bigot for holding the position I do. To me, the fact they do this is actually exposing their true agenda, to dominate rather than ‘free’ people.

    This is what I find so disturbing.

    The arguments for gay marriage are often extremely weak and completely lacking in logic, if it wasn’t for the rabid fundamentalists sinking to an even lower level, I don’t think the gay lobby would have won this one.

    The argument against gay marriage should never have been a religious one, it just didn’t need to be, but likewise, the fight for human rights was never supposed to be about pointing at something someone else has and saying “I want it and if you don’t give it to me you’re a monstrous bigot”.

    There is no valid reason that marriage shouldn’t just stay the way it has always been.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. markra (200 comments) says:

    @Shanda

    Personally I agree with you totally in all that you have said.

    I just think that we have to be tolerant, and the fact that they are allowed to marry, shows me that we still are living in a Free society.

    I also think its a matter of, the more you tell the Gay lobby it’s off limits the more they will fight for it.

    They feed off the publicity and by people making their agenda the cent re of the debate.

    Its human nature, the more you tell someone they can’t have something , the more they want it.

    I really feel sorry for ordinary Gay people who just want to anonymously live their lives and not annoy or offend anyone.

    They are fighting for normalcy which unfortunately, by choice or by birth, whatever, they will never achieve.

    I wouldn’t worry about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. markra (200 comments) says:

    @ Shanda

    Your point about being in the minority.

    No you are not, I suggest you are in the majority, but most people have more pressing things to worry about.

    I am only commenting on here because its fun, I may learn something and get to poke fun at some of the idiots in our society.

    But I really don’t think if the law changes it will make any difference

    Just along as the law doesn’t force us to be Gays and get married.

    All the best to you..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Chuck Bird (4,683 comments) says:

    markra, I do not object to homosexual marriage for the same reason Shunda does.

    It is obvious the next step is adoption as well as surrogacy and other weird arrangement that wealthy homosexuals Elton John undertake.

    As well as adoption I have another concern. That is how this and other society stamps of approval on the homosexual lifestyle will affect society particularly adolescents. We have had perverts from the AIDS Foundation invited into schools passing out business cards with their contact details. I had not heard about fisting till I was in my 50s. I really do not think it necessary teach young children this sort of crap.

    If amazes me how illogical these libertarians are who consider most Christians stupid particularly those who disagree with them. If there was a magic pill that could convert homosexuals to heterosexuals and tested all migrants and long time stay visitors like students for HIV there would hardly any new cases of HIV.

    You I presume have read on the subject as I have. I fail to understand how the mind of someone works who honestly beleive that homosexuals are not the main reason for HIV in NZ – not Africa but NZ.

    What sort of sick mind would argue that homosexuals should be allows to give blood? They lack a logical argument so rely on anonymous abuse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Fletch (6,027 comments) says:

    Still, a “free society” has the right to require people to suppress harmful desires, even if it is difficult for them to do so.
    That’s why there are limits on who can marry – not close relatives, or an adult and a minor, or an adult and many partners, adults and animals, or two minors etc.

    I am sure that some of the people in those categories do not think it is “fair” they cannot get married, either, but desire or “because we want to” is not a good enough reason.

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

    Wall claims: “I believe we all need to consider this matter in terms of equality and not our personal beliefs.”

    The problem with this argument is that equality itself IS a personal belief. The levelling egalitarianism of modern liberalism, both right and left, is a matter of belief. Thus her argument, as are all pro-gay arguments, is dishonest.

    I can understand Labour and the Greens bascking this, but it is a betrayal of the principles of the National party and its underlying ethos. Worse, it will lead to the very kind of statist authoritarian interference in peoples lives that David Farrar claims (very selectively of course) to believe in.

    Sooner or later it will be compulsory in schools, leaving parents who disagree with even less choice. And sooner or later it will be forced on the rest of civil society. Sooner or later hate speech laws will be drafted by Labour or the Greens to criminalise dissent.

    1984 anyone?

    The next time then that David Farrar starts ranting on about the smaller government and attacking the Left for wanting to enlarge it, remember, HE IS LYING .

    Both of David’s pet hobby horses, gay marriage and republicanism WILL, without any doubt, lead to more and more government and more and more state interference and social control.

    David claims he is proud to be a member of National.

    Shame that he does not have a clue what it stands for, or at least SHOULD stand for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Psycho Milt (2,267 comments) says:

    PM, and you still didn’t answer my question – how is the sexual desire of a paedophile (even if he never acts upon it), different from that of a homosexuals desire? Why is one an “orientation”, and the other not?

    Well, it’s a silly question, isn’t it? Anyway, I did answer it, you’re just impervious to learning is all. Still, I’ve time on my hands, so just in case: the answer to your question is that it doesn’t differ, any more than yours does. You want to class yours as superior to some others for whatever reasons you blather to yourself about nature or God or moral philosophy or some similar gibberish, but the fact is your sexual desire is neither significantly different nor morally superior to anyone else’s, any more than your eye colour or the length of your nose. We’ve made paedophilia and bestiality crimes for fairly obvious reasons that have had to be explained to you multiple times but that you seem incapable of grasping, but that’s irrelevant to whatever sexual desire those individuals feel.

    As to orientation, you don’t seem to understand the meaning of the word. If you want to know the sexual orientation of a paedophile, it’s fairly straightforward – do they molest, boys, girls, or both?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Andrei (2,504 comments) says:

    Nobody cares what consenting adults do to each other but a man wanting to have sex with another man is a pathology – it is an illness and such people should be treated with compassion but it is still an illness

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. markra (200 comments) says:

    @Chuck

    Totally agree with you .

    However, I think it underscores the importance that parents take the lead in their childs sex education and warn them about these types of people and behaviors.AND the Consequences

    I think they have always been there, but you are right it is alarming that their way of thinking is becoming mainstream.

    People should be warned, don’t leave your sex education to your local school and definitely not the AIDS foundation.

    I also think that you should warn children that members of the AIDS foundation or Gay movement should be treated in the same way, as if a Car stopped on the side of the and a man got out offering candy and offering a ride.

    I personally believe they are filthy perverts who do not care about children’s welfare but pushing their sexual agenda. However, I think we have to give credit to our kids that they aren’t stupid.

    I have seen lots of Gay adverts been exposed to the adverts of the Gay lifestyle and to be honest for me, I would vomit if I watched too men humping. Am never going to become one, so am not covinced exposure would change that.

    They will not change me and I think it will be unlikely they will change most young people. Only those who are confused or unsure and who are vulnerable. Which of course is very sad.

    The adoption issue. Well I agree that is an issue of concern and think that has to be treated with extreme caution.

    I also do believe in cause and affect, and know that the Homosexual lifestyle choice is not a healthy and often not a happy one and if it gets to prevalent, nature will likely step in.

    The balance will be restored again otherwise the break down of society will happen.

    Things I am sure go in cycles and nature will right itself.

    Last point, yes you are correct, Homosexuals are the main risk group for the spread of HIV. The AIDS foundation even admits it. However, you can see they don’t like to. They call homos “MSM” to try and mask who they are. You know and I know and anyone who is honest with them self also knows.

    http://www.nzaf.org.nz/files/Fourteen_centrally_important_strategic_points_about_HIV_prevention_for_MSM_in_NZ_-_2010_Analysis_Paper_March_2010.pdf

    But also promiscuity in heteros doesn’t help either. Good clean living in a monogamous Hetero relationship is the safest way to go.

    Anyway am sorry have to go, appreciate the conversation.

    Take heart though that the Gay rights movement will always be a minority(a weird one to), hence why they are trying to brow beat us and convince us of their garbage.

    You should take heart in that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. markra (200 comments) says:

    @ Andrei

    Good call.

    Yep it is likely an illness, a mistake, deviant or whatever anyone wants to call it. But you should be compassionate and understanding o those affected.

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

    There is no true conservatism in NZ anymore.

    The divide between political left and right is almost purely economic in nature. On issues of morality the same liberal elite are running both sides of the political spectrum.

    The main clash in ideology now is on wealth, how it should be earned and how it should be distributed, the morality that underpins society is being destroyed by both sides but for different reasons.

    The problem with much of organised religion is that they end up participating in this quite willingly with the delusions that somehow a vote for the right = a vote for more moral government, it doesn’t.

    In my experience with Christianity, I really believe it has a tremendous amount to offer, the problem is very few Christian people are really prepared to do the necessary personal character building to be an effective leader of society.

    Most of the organised church represents but a shell of true Christianity, they have reduced the gospel message to an endless list of arbitrary rules and regulations that repels almost everybody.

    In truth, the Christian conservatives don’t fight to win, they are too hell bent on being “right” that they neglect to develop legitimate authority in the matters they comment on.

    In my experience, people are naturally drawn to leaders that display wisdom and character regardless regardless of their personal beliefs, unfortunately, NZ Christianity is desperately short of leaders with wisdom and character.

    Instead of blaming societies ills on the rise of evil, perhaps Christians could look at themselves and blame it on the loss of Christian integrity in the communities they live in.

    Or is the Devil stronger than Christ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. markra (200 comments) says:

    @ Shunda

    Sounds good to me and you sound like a good and caring person.

    You run for parliament and I will vote for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. markra (200 comments) says:

    @ eszett

    Sorry for being mean to you but I just couldn’t help myself.

    Ref: mark (120)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. markra (200 comments) says:

    @eszett

    I meant ref to comment at 12:55 PM.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Chuck Bird (4,683 comments) says:

    @markra

    “People should be warned, don’t leave your sex education to your local school and definitely not the AIDS foundation.”

    You are right they should be warned. Sometimes teaches actually try to discourage children from telling their parents.

    “They will not change me and I think it will be unlikely they will change most young people. Only those who are confused or unsure and who are vulnerable.”

    I agree. However, like cults these perverts often target confused, unsure and possibly bullied young people. When this is combined with what young people see how homosexuality is normalized on TV like Coronation Street or its NZ or Oz equivalent and endorsed by high profile politicians I can see these young people becoming very confused.

    My children are now adults but I do have concerns about my grandchildren and of course other children.

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

    Do you know what the great thing about confusion is Chuck? it makes those that walk in clarity stand out more.

    Perhaps, just perhaps, if Christians were walking in clarity, full of grace and truth, integrity and wisdom, there would be an alternative to the blind leading the blind.

    The problem with modern Christians is that they are afraid of hard work, they expect credibility without first earning it and quickly condemn others that won’t give it to them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Fletch (6,027 comments) says:

    but the fact is your sexual desire is neither significantly different [...] to anyone else’s

    PM, does “anyone else” include the paedophile? And if not, why not? And if it is not different, then why is one an orientation and one a sickness.

    We’ve made paedophilia and bestiality crimes for fairly obvious reasons

    Yes, but what does that have to do with the question of whether desiring something constitutes an orientation or is even beneficial? Does the fact that we’ve made paedophilia a crime in the Western world make a paedophile’s desire any less of an orientation? Even if we consider that orientation a disorder? In the Roman culture men loving boys was considered normal and not criminal. I’m just talking about the desire here, as I’ve said before, even if the man never acts on it.

    As to orientation, you don’t seem to understand the meaning of the word. If you want to know the sexual orientation of a paedophile, it’s fairly straightforward – do they molest, boys, girls, or both?

    Actually, it is more common a crime for paedophiles to molest boys.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. wat dabney (3,672 comments) says:

    Nobody cares what consenting adults do to each other but a man believing in a magical space pixie is a pathology – it is an illness and such people should be treated with compassion but it is still an illness

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

    Two things. First my apologies to David for accusing him of lying. I realise now that was unfair. While I still think DPF is wrong about this issue, and that it will lead to more, not less, state interference in peoples lives, I am happy to accept that David genuinely believes otherwise and genuinely belives that state sanctioned gay marriage is consistent with his principles.

    Shurunda,

    “Instead of blaming societies ills on the rise of evil, perhaps Christians could look at themselves and blame it on the loss of Christian integrity in the communities they live in.

    Or is the Devil stronger than Christ?”

    A fair comment. The Church is partly to blame for allowing secular liberalism to gain ascendency, though not entirely for the reasons you think.

    I would point out that there are many Christian leaders with integrity and vision who are addressing the problem of the decline of the Christian West. There is a consensus growing amongst conservative and centrist Christians about this, and you may be suprised to learn that this consensus has largely ditched a simplistic “vote for the right” approach.

    Timothy Keller is one of those leaders. He identifies several problems now facing the Church:

    1.political polarization that has sucked churches into its vortex;

    2.the sexual revolution that has undermined the plausibility of Christian faith and practice for an entire generation;

    3.globalization that has made the exclusive claims of Christianity seem highly oppressive;

    4.materialism and consumerism that undermines commitment to anything higher than the self; and

    5.alienation of the cultural elites and culture-shaping institutions from Christianity.

    Here is a short synopsis of what he and others are proposing in part:

    “What, if anything, can we do about the decline of Christianity? This question has triggered an entire generation of books and blogs. Douthat’s book is mainly descriptive and critical. He even admits that the book was “written in a spirit of pessimism.” Yet he rightly responds that for any Christian, “pessimism should always be provisional.” So in his last chapter he very briefly proposes four factors that could lead to the “recovery of Christianity.”

    First, he speaks of the “postmodern opportunity.” The same relativism and rootlessness that has weakened the church is also proving exhausting rather than liberating to many in our society. Even in the academy, postmodern theory is now widely seen as being in eclipse, and there is no “next big thing” on the horizon. Douthat wonders about the possibility of a kind of revolution from above—that is, a revival of Christianity among cultural elites.

    Second, he notes the opposite impulse at work, the “Benedict option”—a new monasticism that does not seek engagement with culture but rather the formation of counter-cultural communities that “stand apart . . . and inspire by example rather than by engagement.” Douthat suggests that these first two measures should not be seen as completely opposed and, indeed, could benefit by being paired with one another, otherwise engaging the culture can become accommodation and being an example can become separatism and sectarianism.

    Third, he cites “the next Christendom,” meaning the explosively growing Christian churches of the former Third World could evangelize the West. Under the first two proposals Douthat can name some existing efforts that hold promise, but this factor is much more than a dream. In European and North American cities literally thousands of new churches and missions have already begun under the leadership of African, Latin American, and Asian Christians.

    Finally, he proposes that “an age of diminished [economic] expectations”—along with the devastation of the sexual revolution and the exhaustion of postmodern rootlessness—could lead to the masses again looking to Christianity for hope and help. A church that could welcome them, he warns, would need three qualities. First, it would have to be political without being partisan. That is, it would have to equip all its members to be culturally engaged through vocation and civic involvement without identifying corporately with one political party. Second, it would have to be confessional yet ecumenical. That is, the church would have to be fully orthodox within its theological and ecclesiastical tradition yet not narrow and harsh toward other kinds of Christians. It should be especially desirous of cooperation with non-Western Christian leaders and churches. Third, the church would not only have to preach the Word faithfully, but also be committed to beauty and sanctity, the arts, and human rights for all. In this brief section he sounds a lot like Lesslie Newbigin and James Hunter, who have described a church that can have a “missionary encounter with Western culture.””

    http://thegospelcoalition.org/mobile/article/tgc/an-agenda-for-recovering-christianity-in-america

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Psycho Milt (2,267 comments) says:

    PM, does “anyone else” include the paedophile? And if not, why not? And if it is not different, then why is one an orientation and one a sickness.

    Your teachers must have taken to drink in their despair. Let’s take it slowly:

    “Anyone else” is a straightforward term, it means “anyone else.” Paedophiles meet the definition.

    Paedophilia isn’t a sickness, it’s a crime.

    The term “orientation” refers to sexual orientation, ie which sex you’re attracted to. There are two sexes, male and female. That makes for three possible sex orientations for any individual, none of which is “paedophile.” I suspect this last is the bit you’re really struggling with – try reading it again slowly.

    Actually, it is more common a crime for paedophiles to molest boys.

    There may be a discussion to which that claim would be relevant, but it isn’t this one.

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

    “The term “orientation” refers to sexual orientation, ie which sex you’re attracted to.”

    Not true. Orientation can and is used to label a number of psycho-sexual compulsions that are deep rooted, including pedophilia.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Yvette (2,692 comments) says:

    > “Paedophilia isn’t a sickness, it’s a crime.”

    As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia, or paedophilia, is defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary). The prepubescent child must be at least five years younger than the adolescent before the attraction can be diagnosed as pedophilia

    Is pedophilia not a particular mind-set, a particular pre-occupation concerning sex – just as depression is a particular adjustment [but not a happy one] to negative thoughts or anxiety?
    Is’nt it when the interest actually involves another specific person [a child] that it becomes a crime?

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

    “..but the Gay movement are dishonest bunch of Cretans…”

    i never realised all homosexuals were from crete…

    ..go figure..!

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Nookin (3,037 comments) says:

    “i never realised all homosexuals were from crete…”

    Aren’t all lesbians from Lesbos?

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

    Chuck Bird:His honest view is that there may in some cases be a predisposition to homosexual behaviour these are far less important than environmental factors.

    I’ve read Whitehead’s book and I’m undecided as to whether its incompetent or dishonest. It misrepresents facts, and, rather noticeably, omits many studies supporting a biological component to sexual orientation even though other studies it cites were published later them. So the omission clearly wasn’t due to deadlines. Its also pretty clear from the first chapter than his understanding of the relevant science isn’t as good as he thinks it is.

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

    Rufus:Chiz, sorry for the hack cut-and-paste job, and for not including all the references, (I’ve got them if you want to read more) but if you’re actually interested, can I refer you to:

    You have all the references? Really? You’ve picked them up from christian website I assume.

    In 1991, J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard published a study that examined identical and fraternal twin brothers and adopted brothers in an effort to establish a genetic link to homosexuality.

    There have been a number of twin studies on sexual orientation. They suffer, like many studies, from sample bias problems but they generally find higher concordance rates in MZ twins than DZ twins.

    But since identical twins have identical genetic material, the fact that nearly half of the identical twins were heterosexual effectively refutes the idea that homosexuality has a genetic basis.

    This is false. Despite what many people think, identical twins are not in fact genetically identical. They are very similar, more so than dizygotic or sesquizygotic twins but they are not identical. I will grant you that this myth is very widespread and it still ocurrs in the scientific community, especially psychologists, but it isn’t true. It is in fact possible for a trait to be 100% genetic and show no concordance whatsoevere in MZ twins.

    And in any case, claiming that there is a biological component to sexual orientation isn’t the same as claiming that it is genetic. Non-genetic explanations have been proposed.

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

    Chuck:Show me.

    As just one example consider this paper from 1997, not mentioned in the Whitehead book.

    We know that if you play sounds into the ears of most people you get back a type of echo, produced by the outer hair cells in the coahlea, known as an induced (or evoked) otoacoustic emission. There are differences in strength between left and right ears, and also, between women and men. The study also found differences in lesbians and bisexual women, and hints of a difference in bisexual men. Most people have never heard of induced otoacoustic emissions and they can’t be consciously controlled so this difference is hard to explain by psychosocial factors.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Yvette (2,692 comments) says:

    Chiz – we have always known we should cover our ears
    1 Corinthians 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. mikenmild (10,760 comments) says:

    So, is cutting one’s hair one of those crimes punishable by death in Leviticus?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    markra (122) Says:
    May 12th, 2012 at 10:54 am

    @eszett

    No not a conflicted personality.

    I am not, as I am sure most people are not interested ,what Homosexuals do in the privacy of their own home, or whether they marry.

    However I am pissed when stupid people like you and the GAY movement try to normalize and scientifically backup the benefits of your chosen sexual behavior to us.

    There you go, conflict number 1. You say you don’t care but in the next sentence you say you do. You are okay with gay marriage but you sya it’s not normal? What exactly do you mean by that?

    To even try to state that there are benefits to the species is outright absurd. I am sure there are a lot of gay scientists out there who will push their own studies to try and support the lifestyle choice.

    It’s no more beneficial, than cross dressing, masturbation, sex with inanimate objects, sex with blowup dolls. I read in the news recently, (don’t know if it is true) that a man in Asia married his pillow. Good on him

    They are all life choices which don’t hurt other people.

    But to claim homosexuality assists in the survival of the species more that these other sexual behaviors or fetishs is evidence of your self delusion.

    I would take a guess that not one person on this earth was the result of a homosexual act.

    Your understanding of how evolution works is extremely limited, to say the least.

    That homosexuality is not passed on “directly” is quite obvious. After all, most gay people were born to straight people. Conversely, children of gay people are not gay themselves at a higher than the rest of the population.

    If you were truly interested you could read upon it, it is easy to find others. But of course you are rather emotional about the topic and not interested in actually learning something. You choose to wallow in your ignorance and pat yourself on your back on how “smart” you are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda (2,068) Says:
    May 12th, 2012 at 11:12 am

    Homosexuality vs heterosexuality is no more a choice or an illness than lefthandedness is vs righthandedness.

    That is absolute crap.

    Being left handed or right handed is hardly an issue for species survival, and even then, you can train yourself to be left or right handed!

    It’s really funny that you bring that up. Not too long ago lefties were forced in school to train themselves as righties. In schools they were forced to “train” to use their right hand resulting mostly in terrible hand writing. Mostly also around some silly arguments that it is “unnatural” and a “choice”

    And it’s nothing you can be trained out off, you will always remain a leftie.

    It is absolutely undeniable that some people choose to engage in homosexual acts for no other reason than it tickles, one doesn’t have to be gay to enjoy sexual stimulation, all one has to do is ‘be into it’.

    Oh, so I guess that means since you enjoy sexual stimulation, you would also enjoy gay sex, right? It’s a choice, so your choice to have having sex with women is arbitrary, you could just as well choose to have sex with men and enjoy it the same way. (I am assuming that you are male). It has nothing to do with who you find sexually attractive, right?

    It’s pretty obvious that the sexual orientation and sexual attraction is not something you can choose.

    If you think otherwise, I challenge you to go out there and choose to be gay. Just for one day. Choose to think of other men as sexual partners and find them attractive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Psycho Milt (2,267 comments) says:

    Is pedophilia not a particular mind-set, a particular pre-occupation concerning sex – just as depression is a particular adjustment [but not a happy one] to negative thoughts or anxiety?
    Is’nt it when the interest actually involves another specific person [a child] that it becomes a crime?

    That’s exactly what it is, a particular pre-occupation concerning sex. A mental illness is whatever the DSM IV says it is, which makes calling paedophilia a “sickness” meaningless in real terms. You’re right though, the desire isn’t a crime in and of itself – I’m just irked by Fletch’s constant attempts to equate homosexuality and paedophilia.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    Andrei (1,221) Says:
    May 12th, 2012 at 12:46 pm

    Nobody cares what consenting adults do to each other but a man wanting to have sex with another man is a pathology – it is an illness and such people should be treated with compassion but it is still an illness

    Fletch (2,742) Says:
    May 12th, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    Still, a “free society” has the right to require people to suppress harmful desires, even if it is difficult for them to do so.

    Fletch (2,742) Says:
    May 12th, 2012 at 9:45 am

    It was fletch who claimed that homosexuality was an “illness”. And so did you.

    eszett, in fact, it was in the List of Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association until 1974. And do you know why it was changed? Was it because they found new medical evidence? No. It was purely because of harassing and intimidation by gay activists for 3 years. It was purely political.

    Well, at least you guys now admit that homosexuality is not a choice. Well done. Progress.

    Now all you have to do is explain how this is an illness. That doesn’t make any sense. How does it harm and how?

    No, fletch, the reason it was removed from the list was because there was no evidence that it is an illness. Of course the gay community was trying to get it removed. Why wouldn’t they?

    How about we label being a christian as an illness. Would you not try and do something about it. (A being christian is a choice.)

    It’s nonsense. All you arguments boil down to some single source .

    You think homosexuality is yuck. And you build this whole imaginary construct trying to justify it with some pseudo-scientific arguments around it.

    Fact is, homosexuality is as old as mankind, it’s natural, it’s not a choice, it’s not an illness, it’s just as harmless as being straight or lefthanded.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Chuck Bird (4,683 comments) says:

    “it’s just as harmless as being straight or lefthanded.”

    Yeah right! Tell that to a woman who finds out her husband is HIV+ becasue he was batting for the other team. I knew one and she was lucky. Others have died. You mention innocent victims to the evil scum at the AIDS Foundation at they get most upset.

    I have many good reason to loath scum like Kevin Hague former director as well as the current lot trying gain point from this unfortunate boy.

    They have blood on their filthy hands. If is the AIDS Foundation and mates of Peter Davis* that successfully lobbied not to screen migrants. New Zealanders have become infected as a result. Innocent woman married to a closet bi-sexuals have become infected.

    Eszett and chiz do you consider such women innocent victims or do you think it is their fault for not insisting their husbands where condoms.

    * Read Davis’ book, “Intimate Details & Vital Statistics”
    The guy is one sick puppy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Psycho Milt (2,267 comments) says:

    How about we label being a christian as an illness.

    That’s the handy thing about mental illness, it’s whatever the psychiatrists say it is. So homosexuality was a mental illness in the States until 1974, and having a poor opinion of socialism was a mental illness in the Soviet Union until presumably about 1989. No reason Christianity couldn’t also become a mental illness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    That is just silly and despicable nonsense to you are spewing again, Chucky.

    What about all the women that are cheated on by their straight husbands with prostitutes and other women? And then bring back home STDs

    Do you then go out and claim heterosexuality is dangerous and should be discouraged? That happens way more often than your example.

    It has nothing to do with homo- or heterosexuality, but about individual behaviour.

    You are just desperately trying to conflate issues here to somehow justify your bigotry..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    The guy is one sick puppy.

    I haven’t read Peter Davies’ book so I couldn’t comment on it.
    But you simply blinded by your hatred of homosexuals and your are simply impenetrable to any reasoned and logical argument.
    You just keep on repeating the old, debunked misinformation about homosexuals, HIV, AIDs, etc no mater how silly and obscure they are.

    You are not even remotely interested in having a rational discussion, you have your prejudice and your dogma and they have to be proven at all costs.

    Although I see you have stopped quoting gayconspiracy.info as even you are embarrassed by that nonsense.

    It is people like you, who are still stuck in the 80s, and not the NZAF who should take a good hard look at what they are doing and saying before accusing other people of “having blood on their filthy hands”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Chuck Bird (4,683 comments) says:

    “What about all the women that are cheated on by their straight husbands with prostitutes and other women?”

    I am talking about HIV. How many cases have there been of men contracting HIV from a NZ prostitute? I would say few if any?

    It is hard to get figures for the number of women infect with HIV from their husbands because MOH will not collect such figures. They are very evasive when asked why they do not collect such figures but acknowledged a number of women have been infected this way.

    There is a big difference between being infected with herpes or gonorrhea than HIV.

    Do not dodge the question.

    Do you consider a woman who is infected with HIV because her husband regularly had sex at a public bog an innocent victim?

    Do you consider her husband an innocent victim?

    The AIDS Foundation’s position is that if they counsel the HIV+ husband they should not insist that if he thinks there is any chance he will have sex with his wife that he should tell her of his HIV status and not just recommend that he does? Do you support there position?

    I forgot you stance on HIV+ people informing their sexual partners. I beleive you again support AIDS Foundation’s position.

    I am certainly not worried about someone like you calling me a bigot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    And just how does that support your view that homosexuality is dangerous, chucky? That is your main argument, isn’t it?

    It’s like saying “look at all the left handed murders, what do you think about all these innocent victims of evil left handedness*
    It’s just ridiculous bigoted nonsense.

    Again, you are strolling off topic (and on to your favourite topic) and spreading misinformation and lies about the NZAF.

    NZAF position was and is that you definitely should tell your partner! They encourage that and offer ways and means to actually tell your partner.

    What they are against is that it should somehow be forced by law. And with good reason as it has shown to be counterproductive in other countries. Furthermore there are already laws to deal with intentionally and neglectfully infecting people.

    Of course it doesn’t bother you to be called a bigot. If it would you wouldn’t be saying such silly and nonsensical things.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. markra (200 comments) says:

    Hi eszett

    How you going licking that fuzz.

    Have you made any kids yet.

    I notice you didn’t take me up on that experiment I suggested you try earlier. A lot of silence there.

    So tell me, did your parents have you as a result of a homosexual act.

    Did you slip out of your daddy’s arsehole? Hey don’t worry, Charles Darwin said it’s ok and that is how humans are created.

    Now sorry please continue, I think you were saying that homosexuality is normal part of the evolutionary development.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. markra (200 comments) says:

    @ if you think it is ok that the AIDS foundation are against a law forcing you to tell your partner that you have AIDS before you sleep with them, then you are definitely a sick Bitch.

    I think that if you Read the Crimes Act 1961 (definition of murder)the AF potentially could be, being an accessory to murder, if the person contracts HIV and is unlucky enough to die from it. especially when you know that it could very possibly kill them.

    Hey but reading your posts so far , I think it is patently obvious that you are a sick bitch.

    That proves to me that AIDS foundation is definitely not about AIDS prevention, otherwise they would do everything in their power to make sure that the other party was informed and that HIV did not spread.

    There you go people, do you want you hard earned Tax going to these sickos.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. markra (200 comments) says:

    @ Pyscho Milt

    Hey man. Who could take you serious, why did you take Psycho Milt, are you some kid of retard or something?

    Let me guess, you haven’t matured yet, or your parents never gave you name, or you name is an embarrassment.

    Not sure which.

    If you want to have a mature conversation with adults, at least act like an adult and use a normal name and not the name of some attention seeking git.

    God you and Eszett would get a long, you both sound like some type of alternative lifestyle misfits.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. markra (200 comments) says:

    Hey eszett you weren’t told that you could come out of the closett anyway.

    We are trying to have a sensible conversation. I was sensible until you reappeared again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. markra (200 comments) says:

    type it was sensible until you appeared again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. markra (200 comments) says:

    @wat dabney

    I think it’s past your bedtime again.

    Let the adults talk now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. markra (200 comments) says:

    @eszett

    read below: this is information was taken from your beloved AIDS foundation website.

    http://www.nzaf.org.nz/files/Fourteen_centrally_important_strategic_points_about_HIV_prevention_for_MSM_in_NZ_-_2010_Analysis_Paper_March_2010.pdf

    “MSM are at greatest risk of HIV acquisition and transmission because of the amount and concurrency of the anal sex that is practiced, together with the heightened HIV prevalence levels found in the MSM population. MSM are therefore the primary target group for HIV prevention in New Zealand, accounting for 77% of all HIV diagnoses where infection was acquired in this country over the last five years (2005-2009). MSM comprise about 2.5% of the total New Zealand adult population aged 15-64 years. This means that there were 55 newly diagnosed and locally acquired HIV infections in a pool of approximately 71,000 MSM in 2009. This contrasts with 19 locally acquired heterosexual cases in an adult population of around 2.79 million people in that same year”

    Can your stupid retarded brain understand that. Get your head out of your girlfriends fuzz and read the facts.

    No one has tolerance for your bullshit now. Stop trying to lie to everyone like you have just been lying to Chucky above 10:11pm.

    Bugger off and go and lick some more fuzz and don’t waste our MFng time with your trendy BS.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Daigotsu (450 comments) says:

    “It comes down to two choices – either they are BOTH orientations, or NEITHER are. Which choice do you support?”

    I guess they are both orientations. So? I don’t have any problem with saying one orientation is problematic, and one isn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. markra (200 comments) says:

    @Diagotsu

    They are both problematic.

    Wakeup!!

    Pedophiles are ostracized and shunned.

    Homosexuals are ostracized and shunned.

    The only difference with homosexuality is it is now legal, and it is supposed to be illegal to discriminate against them, but the majority of people still don’t accept it.

    Try an experiment. Go to a bar and ask some guy if he is gay. Chances are you will get your face smashed in .
    I don’t agree with that response, but most guys hate any thought that someone would think they are gay. Case and point.

    So I guess that proves that they are not accepted, rightly or wrongly.
    That is a fact.

    Homosexual people live a very hard life, having to hide from family friends etc. Why do you think they make a big deal about coming out of the closet.

    He they can’t get married and look at the fuss they are having to endure to get that priviledge.

    They get harassed, discriminated against, bullied, laughed at. It’s very sad and unfair the cruelty they have to go through.

    Not something I would wish on anybody.

    Don’t kid yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. markra (200 comments) says:

    @Diagotsu (cont)

    Homosexual Men who have sex with other men also have serious health problems, again read above what I spelt out for that dimwit Eszett.

    I will give you more credit that her because hopefully you will read and see logic and the true health risks for MSMs.

    To say that it is not problematic is delusional.

    I take it you are not gay and have not seen the problems a lot of these guys have.

    Chucky put up a great link on another thread, to a book written by a Gay man in New York who has seen AIDS kill many of his close friends.
    He is not going to lie, why would he. Go an check it out for yourself and then reexamine your statement.

    http://www.gabrielrotello.com/index.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. markra (200 comments) says:

    http://www.gabrielrotello.com/index.htm

    here is the link to the start of his Book. Thanks to Amazon.com

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0525941649/ref=ed_oe_h/102-8305937-8643364

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

    It’s really funny that you bring that up. Not too long ago lefties were forced in school to train themselves as righties. In schools they were forced to “train” to use their right hand resulting mostly in terrible hand writing. Mostly also around some silly arguments that it is “unnatural” and a “choice”

    And it’s nothing you can be trained out off, you will always remain a leftie.

    You completely miss the point, it’s really funny you try link my comment to the first act of ignorance regarding left handedness you could find. By the way, I am right handed but trained myself to shoot basketball with my left hand.

    Oh, so I guess that means since you enjoy sexual stimulation, you would also enjoy gay sex, right? It’s a choice, so your choice to have having sex with women is arbitrary, you could just as well choose to have sex with men and enjoy it the same way. (I am assuming that you are male). It has nothing to do with who you find sexually attractive, right?

    You could stick your dick through a hole in a wall and be pleasured orally by a male or female and the experience would be identical. All you have to be is into it.

    Now you are being deliberately narrow minded because it suits your agenda. One doesn’t have to be overcome by the beauty of a sexual partner before one can engage in the act, there are plenty of ugly woman that manage to find a mate, and plenty of ugly men that do the same. That some people choose to engage in homosexual acts for the hell of it is absolutely undeniable. May be some are born gay, but some most certainly are not. Your position on this is naive and extremely inconsistent.

    It’s pretty obvious that the sexual orientation and sexual attraction is not something you can choose.

    You can choose to stick your dick wherever you want, stop being a moron.

    If you think otherwise, I challenge you to go out there and choose to be gay. Just for one day. Choose to think of other men as sexual partners and find them attractive.

    Ha!

    Are you coming on to me dude?

    To me, homosexual sex is a depraved act, and incidentally, I don’t want to put my penis up anyone’s backside male or female because (as I understand it :) ), that is where pooze exists the body!!.

    The plumbing doesn’t work that way, it is as simple as that, and I don’t need to try it to figure that out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. markra (200 comments) says:

    @Shunda

    Wouldn’t worry trying to explain yourself to that dyke Eszette.

    I think her brain resides in her strap-on.

    Hey Eszette how’s that Fuzz licking going?

    You will get more sense talking to a PUBLIC toilet SEAT.

    It’s probably licked as much arse and has the same mental capacity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. markra (200 comments) says:

    @ Shunda

    Good on you. Yep , dipping it in someones bottom, is like dipping it in a septic tank, or down a toilet.

    Its a shit pipe. God it must smell great, excuse me I am just going away to vomit.

    Now don’t you feel sorry for GAYs?

    I’ll leave it to them afterall they are the experts.

    Now come on someone. Dare you tell me I am being vile. I can even tell you how to clean you ahole before doing it in the exhaust pipe. I just learnt those gems of information courtesy the Aids Foundation website. If you want to organise a Gay orgy go to AF they will help you with that to.

    Now don’t worry everybody, Eszette confirms that it is all perfectly natural.

    I think giving someone a good Rimming must be a wonderful experience. as well as chundering, felching. Wow, I just can’t wait to see a baby come out as a result of those party games.

    What hole will it come out of Eszette, please tell us. I am so excited to find out what your evolutionary research tells you.
    Maybe it’s even true that men can have babies in your world.

    As our friendly Dyke, please tell us?????

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. markra (200 comments) says:

    @ Eszette

    Thank you for just being you. Looking over your comments, I am laughing myself silly.

    I am sure that if there is a God, he must be a happy one to put people like you on the earth to make us all laugh.

    Goodnight all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    To me, homosexual sex is a depraved act, and incidentally, I don’t want to put my penis up anyone’s backside male or female because (as I understand it ), that is where pooze exists the body!!.

    The plumbing doesn’t work that way, it is as simple as that, and I don’t need to try it to figure that out.

    You are confllating two things. Anal sex is not a homosexual, as you readily admit in the second part of you sentence. So you don’t like anal sex, fair enough. But why a “depraved” act? Do you think therefore oral sex is a depraved act as well?

    Given your “plumbing” argument you probably should.

    And what about gay men and lesbians that don’t engage in anal sex? You are okay with them because they don’t engage in a “depraved” act?

    Don’t worry, I am not coming on to you. All I am asking is for you try and think of other men as sexual attractive. Can you? Can you imagine That gay men view women abput as sexually attractive as you view men? All I am asking is you to try and imagine hat it is to be a gay man, especially when pople like you claim it is just a choice.

    Training yourself to do one thing with your left hand doesn’t make you a leftie. A lot of homosexuals live “heterosexual” lives but that doesn’t make them straight.

    Just as you can’t choose to be a leftie or rightie, sexual attraction is not choice. You can train and try to be something else, but it still doesn’t make you one thing or the other.

    Forcing people to be something they are not is what is truly depraved.

    Your argument is merely that you don’t like homosexuality.

    But you have no reasonable or logical argument against it or against allowing gays to marry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Psycho Milt (2,267 comments) says:

    Hey man. Who could take you serious, why did you take Psycho Milt, are you some kid of retard or something?

    Well, naturally one can’t hope to compete with someone as skilled in argument and as masterful in his control of the English language as yourself…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. markra (200 comments) says:

    @psycho Milt

    That’s probably true where are concerned.

    Maybe you should choose a more lightweight thread, discussing teen pop stars or something more elementary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. markra (200 comments) says:

    correc… u are concerned

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. markra (200 comments) says:

    @lesi-zett

    Good to see you are listening , and not commentimg, 2 things will happen

    you might learn something

    and the rest of us can get on and have a sensible conversation

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

    Your argument is merely that you don’t like homosexuality.

    No it isn’t.

    My argument is I don’t like the behavior of people obsessed with sex. On one hand the gay community wants marriage because they claim they are no different to a loving heterosexual couple, the next minute they engage in behavior that is completely inconsistent with the average married heterosexual couple.

    They are not the same, they are seeking a fundamental redefinition of marriage for no reason other than they want what somebody else has got.

    When heterosexual males engage in the level of promiscuity that gay males do, they are said to have a problem, an imbalance, but gay males?? nope, just par for the course.

    Most people base their opinion on this issue on ignorance of what really goes on in the gay (particularly male) community, as soon as one does some research or makes friends with a homosexual, you begin to see a whole another side, an often extremely ugly side.

    The reality is, most people would be appalled at what goes on in many popular gay bars/bath houses, and I know for a fact that even the gay ‘friendly’ people on this thread are right now thinking “well, he’s got a point there”.

    The homosexual lifestyle is usually very different from that of the heterosexual married couple, notice I qualified that with “married couple” and not promiscuous heterosexual behavior.

    You could see this if you wanted too, most of the gay community is as far away from heterosexual marriage as it is possible to get.

    But you have no reasonable or logical argument against it or against allowing gays to marry.

    I have repeatedly proven that I have several very valid arguments against the redefinition of marriage. It’s no coincidence that much of the approval for gay marriage comes from people that don’t value the institution, there are plenty of heterosexuals that hate the idea of long term commitment and there always will be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Psycho Milt (2,267 comments) says:

    …and the rest of us can get on and have a sensible conversation

    Personally, I would pay actual money to see you and Fletch having a “sensible conversation” about this, particularly your own cultural learnings for make benefit glorious nation of New Zealand. Someone should get you together to discuss this subject and film you doing it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Psycho Milt (2,267 comments) says:

    They are not the same, they are seeking a fundamental redefinition of marriage for no reason other than they want what somebody else has got.

    Well, yes. That’s the whole point, isn’t it? They want what everybody else has got. What you’re missing is the bit where you explain why they shouldn’t have what everybody else has.

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

    They want what everybody else has got. What you’re missing is the bit where you explain why they shouldn’t have what everybody else has.

    I just did, but it is around behind your blinkers.

    If someone is born without legs (an anomaly), they would probably want what everybody else has got.

    If someone is born homosexual(an anomaly), they probably would want what everybody else has got.

    But they can’t, because like the guy without legs, it’s just the way it is. They should learn to be happy and contented with what they are if indeed they are born they way.

    And I know for a fact that many Gay people see it exactly as I do, it is only the radical gay activists and the radical hetero enablers that think differently.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. Psycho Milt (2,267 comments) says:

    I should think that if someone born without legs could get what everyone else has through the simple expedient of MPs stirring themselves to amend a piece of legislation, it would be seen as distinctly churlish to deny them.

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

    Chuck:Eszett and chiz do you consider such women innocent victims or do you think it is their fault for not insisting their husbands where condoms.

    Yes, they are a victim. The more interesting question, which you don’t address, is why gay men would marry women and pretend to be straight. Is it because of attitudes like yours?

    Innocent woman married to a closet bi-sexuals have become infected.

    Are we talking about someone who is gay and in the closet and pretending to be straight, or someone who is bisexual and in the closet and pretending to be straight? Some of your comments leave me wondering whether you understand the distinction.

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

    Shunda:I have repeatedly proven that I have several very valid arguments against the redefinition of marriage.

    Perhaps you could summarise them or link to them or list the timestamps since I seem to have missed them. Marriage is a legal construct. It exists for a number of legal and cultural reasons. Even for heterosexual couples not all of those reasons will apply to some couples, its unclear therefore why we, or you, should demand that all of those reasons apply to gay couples. If you are willing to allow postmenopausal women, or sterile couples, to marry what objection do you have to gay couples?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Chuck Bird (4,683 comments) says:

    chiz, if you believe such a woman is not just a victim but a totality innocent victim as opposed to her husband is not then that view is the opposite of the AIDS Foundation who consider them both victims.

    The issue of whether he was a bi or got married even if his main preference was male is not relevant to the position of the AIDS Foundation on this and other matters.

    HIV should be a notifiable disease and if someone test HIV+ all sexual partners should be notified. This is done with other contagious diseases. The AIDS Foundation opposes this.

    If someone is HIV+ they should be legally obliged to tell any future sexual partners even is a condom is used. The AIDS Foundation opposes this.

    Migrants should be screened for HIV. They are now. The AIDS Foundation opposed this.

    These are the reasons I want to see all government funding cut to them. They are far more interest in homosexual rights than minimising the incidence of HIV in NZ

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

    I should think that if someone born without legs could get what everyone else has through the simple expedient of MPs stirring themselves to amend a piece of legislation, it would be seen as distinctly churlish to deny them.

    But they can’t grow the legs can they, just like they can’t make homosexual relationships like heterosexual relationships, they are born different aren’t they? isn’t that what you and several others are saying?

    Marriage is a tradition, end of story.

    Having access to a tradition is not a fundamental human right, it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

    The State should officially declare civil unions as the legal definition of state recognized relationships and leave the tradition of heterosexual marriage as it is.

    Let the angry gay lobby go and find something else to ruin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. mikenmild (10,760 comments) says:

    You are nearly right, Shunda: the government should simply repeal the Marriage Act and any other legislation that regulates personal relationships between adults – it’s no business of the state.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Psycho Milt (2,267 comments) says:

    But they can’t grow the legs can they, just like they can’t make homosexual relationships like heterosexual relationships, they are born different aren’t they? isn’t that what you and several others are saying?

    We’re saying MPs amending a piece of legislation is rather more achievable than growing a new pair of legs, but you seem to be classing them as equally impossible for some reason known only to yourself.

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

    Anyone that says homosexual relationships are just like heterosexual married relationships is either completely ignorant of the homosexual community, or being deliberately disingenuous.

    I am picking the latter, they know damned well that a married heterosexual couple is about as far away from the average gay relationship as it is possible to get, but hey, can’t let those f@ckin breeders think they’re better than them can we.

    That is what this is really about, it’s all those other parts of the Gay community that they don’t want to see the light of day.

    Narcissism is seen as a problem by psychologists, it’s even a registered personality disorder, but in the gay community it’s celebrated as a f@ckin virtue.

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

    We’re saying MPs amending a piece of legislation is rather more achievable than growing a new pair of legs, but you seem to be classing them as equally impossible for some reason known only to yourself.

    Are you really that dull?

    Here it is again, changing the law is not going to make gay couples like straight married couples!!

    These relationships are at opposite ends of the spectrum and fundamentally different.

    No amount of bullshiting is going to change that reality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. markra (200 comments) says:

    @psycho milt

    It’s funny, if I look at what you have added so far to this thread, it has been to run down every reasoned argument that has been placed on here that you don’t agree with

    There is no coherent reasoning behind any of your criticsms, you are one of the dickheads who has nothing to add, little thought process to create a coherant argument.

    You name on here aptly describes what a shallow airhead you are.

    Why don’t you stop being a lazy prick and actually add something of some substance.

    As for paying money to see…. , usually idiots like you don’t have any.

    You don’t have to agree with me or other on here but any ck sucker to run down everything anyone else says.

    Like I said you might want to start with a topic that is better suited to your intelligence level.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. mikenmild (10,760 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt might still be waiting for that sensible conversation…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. markra (200 comments) says:

    @Shunda

    Yes you are right, gay relationships are totally different from hetero sexual ones.

    If they were the same, then they wouldn’t need to be trying to convince everyone that they are same and we wouldn’t be discussing the pros and cons of gay marriage on here, they would be just getting married like anyone else and no one would think anymore of it.

    I think Shunda some of the idiots on this thread are either mentally retarded or are staunch die hard gay lobby advocates which amounts to the same.

    I personally don’t care whether gays get married, and don’t feel it is my business but I draw line at them trying to normalize their lifestyle.

    It isn’t normal, and it never will be.

    It’s no more normal to the general population than guys who like blowup dolls, marry their pillows, have sex with inanimate objects, like B&D etc.

    The gay sex act is a fetish, just like lots of others that I feel is personal to them, and only to them.

    It will never be mainstream and to try suggest that it will be is deluded.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. Psycho Milt (2,267 comments) says:

    It’s funny, if I look at what you have added so far to this thread, it has been to run down every reasoned argument that has been placed on here that you don’t agree with

    I have a thing about taking the piss out of foolishness on blog comments threads – it’s a weakness to be sure, but a harmless one.

    Here’s something of substance: if the state is going to have a Marriage Act, applying legal status to an intimate relationship between two people, it has to take into account the usual governance responsibility of treating all citizens fairly and not privileging some at the expense of others. A church only has to take its members into account and can make whatever rules the members are willing to put up with, but the government has to consider everybody.

    At the moment, we have a Marriage Act that privileges heterosexual couples over homosexual ones. That’s bad governance, and if some citizens raise it as an example of bad governance they’d like rectified, the government’s responsibility is to rectify it. The available remedies are to amend the Marriage Act to remove the current discrimination from it, or repeal the Act and leave the state’s involvement in marriage only in the form of civil unions.

    As to reasoned arguments, you haven’t made any. You’ve made elaborate declarations of why you dislike homosexuality. That isn’t an argument, it’s an irrelevant opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. mikenmild (10,760 comments) says:

    I’m not sure you will find anyone to engage in your rational argument, PM.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. markra (200 comments) says:

    @mikenmild

    Yes that right, he waits, because anyone can do that when they have nothing to add.

    There are 3 types of people in this world.

    Those that make things happen
    Those that watch things happen
    and

    Those that wonder what happened.

    the second and third type of people only sit and criticise other peoples ideas.

    Personally I think the discussions are over his head.

    There is nothing to state what he thinks and to back it up. He is a lazy arse and only pulls down other people views.

    Looking back you haven’t added much of any substance either.

    Let’s here your views of this topic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. markra (200 comments) says:

    @Psycho Milt

    Wow, I agree with your statements about Gay Marriage. The state should not discriminate.

    I believe in their freedom to get married unless it can be proven that it harms anyone else.

    I haven’t seen any strong argument for that so far.

    Tolerance does not equal agreement to their lifestyle. Personally I find it unhealthy, but then they may not like mine either. That is irrelevant.

    The children adoption issue is different because then it could be argued that it affects a 3rd party. The child.
    That should be an argument for another day.

    I would disagree is Gay marriage equals immediate right to adoption. I think the 2 should remain separate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. markra (200 comments) says:

    @mikenmild,

    you are starting to make the same stupid comments that PM made.

    We want to see your views, not some stupid smug facetious comment. You are starting to be a dickhead.

    Sensible arguments or go somewhere else.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. mikenmild (10,760 comments) says:

    If you want my views, markra, be so kind as to refer to the comment at 6.55 pm.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. markra (200 comments) says:

    Personally I think it is advantageous for Gay people to be married or in a long term committed relationship as with hetero people, if it means living in a monogamous relationship.

    This was the point made by a Gay man who attributed the spread of Aids more to lifestyle than orientation.

    The discussions about the spreading of AIDS above I see is not so attributable to which type of sexual orientation you are, as to the level of promiscuity and the hedonistic lifestyle you live. See links below:

    http://www.gabrielrotello.com/index.htm
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0525941649/ref=ed_oe_h/102-8305937-8643364

    I would have thought Gay people living in a committed monogamous relationship would prove advantageous to all involved as well as to society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. markra (200 comments) says:

    The bottom line for me, is what harm will it do anyone else if they do get married. (barring the adoption issue which I don’t know enough about to comment on, however my initial thoughts is that it is not clear cut either way )

    One should concentrate in keeping his own house in order and stop worrying about what others should or shouldn’t do.

    We live in a free and democratic society and I would like to keep it that way.

    The price for that privilege is that you have to be tolerant of other peoples views.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. markra (200 comments) says:

    @shunda

    I can’t see why you worry about gays getting married.

    You won’t have to be exposed to it in anyway, unless you attend a gay wedding, become a gay marriage celebrant.

    Don’t worry about it man.

    Isn’t it better that gay people are married or committed or what ever they want to call it than living a dirty hedonistic lifestyle.
    A lot of heteros do that to and it is just as unhealthy.

    Why should any of us deny someone their happiness if that makes them happy.

    Personally as described above, I find a gay lifestyle repulsive, but I don’t expose myself to it nor am I interested in it.

    I am not happy with it being taught to my children without my consent as that impinges on my rights.

    That of course will be different for different people and who am I to force my will on them?

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

    Here’s something of substance: if the state is going to have a Marriage Act, applying legal status to an intimate relationship between two people, it has to take into account the usual governance responsibility of treating all citizens fairly and not privileging some at the expense of others.

    All citizens are treated fairly under NZ law.

    You are effectively basing your argument on a technicality, but it is a technicality that still requires one to stick fingers in ears and scream “la la la la la” as loud as you can.

    You see folks? this is what happens when f@ckin lawyers mate with the liberal elite.

    If Homosexuals want to be like heterosexuals the government shouldn’t assist them in their delusion.

    But lets be honest, this isn’t driven by the majority of the gay community, it is driven by a particular group of nihilistic liberal elite, some of which happen to be gay.

    Your argument is bullshit PM it is as simple as that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. markra (200 comments) says:

    @ shunda

    I think Shunda, your gripe should be a against those churches that decide to marry them.

    Tolerance does not equal agreement with someones lifestyle. Nor must it.

    The state would only recognize the legality of their marriage in secular affairs which already exists in the eyes of law now and makes de facto (non married couples) equal in the eyes of the law to married couples anyway.

    Marriage would only be a name, a label of what already exists.

    I think it is organized religion on the whole that you should be angry with that has sold out it’s principals to try and get people to go to church by allowing gay ministers etc. This is clearly a relaxation of its standards from days past.

    Never has homosexuality been accepted in the bible, but neither has sex before marriage, adultery or sex outside marriage.

    Homosexuality is no more a sin than the others list above so I don’t think it is fair to pick on homosexuals. If people want to really protect marriages status, then the attack surely should also target those who live as married couples outside marriage.

    It is religion that has become wishy washy and sold out its principals that I think your anger should be against.

    Islam does not tolerate any of this so in that respect they are more true to their principals however, god help us all if Islam takes over. That is religious intolerance in it’s purest form.

    What do you think would happen to all these alternative type lifestyles if Sharia law was to take over.

    I could only imagine the nightmare to live in a society like that.

    I think freedom is the best choice even if it does mean homosexuals can marry.

    If you look at all the religious writings, except Islam, people should have their freewill to choose their path and will face the consequences accordingly according to their teachings.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. wat dabney (3,672 comments) says:

    There are, what, two passing references to homosexuality in the Bible? Yet far more column inches dedicated to the necessity of living in absolute poverty.

    So guess which topic so-called Christians get all worked up about and which one they completely ignore.

    Who of the so-called Christians here would support a party which pledged to impose the required Biblical levels of poverty on them?

    And who would vote for a state which prohibits homosexuals from marrying?

    Thought so.

    Pass the sick bag.

    And we know which way “Christian” millionaire Colin Craig would vote. Disgusting hypocritical little man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. markra (200 comments) says:

    Wat passed your bedtime mate.

    Only discuss these types of topics with adults.

    Sorry.

    Sick and tired of your behavior when you kept going on about sucking cock.

    what that told me is you don’t have the maturity level to discuss anything with. You are an idiot now get lost.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. markra (200 comments) says:

    I just finished saying that you can’t single out homosexuals only as the bible mentions a number of other behaviors that aren’t acceptable.

    And that I would rather live in a free society where Gay people could marry.

    Also you need to go to school and learn to read.

    Anyway, go to bed, it’s way past your bedtime

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. kowtow (7,636 comments) says:

    In 30 years time this issue will be even more divisive and contentious than it is now………..if Muslims continue to emigrate here.

    These matters are too important to be left to politicians,we need binding referenda.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. markra (200 comments) says:

    @kowtowm

    very true.

    I don’t think Muslims should be allowed to emigrate here unless they turn their back on any idea of Sharia law. and accept the privilege of living within our secular society, means freedom for others.

    That’s why am very keen to keep religion separate from the state .

    I personally don’t feel to sympathetic to gay marriage,however, and that’s a big however, I believe the fact that they may be allowed to marry tells me that we are still living in a healthy democratic society.

    I would rather have Gay marriage, gay this and Gay that than live in a country under Theocratic rule by a looney religion such as Islam.

    Sorry to Muslims, who I have no problem with as individuals, but I know they think that about other religions so we can say it about theirs.

    Remember Free speech cuts both ways.

    When I can no longer say this then NZ is in big Trouble.

    If you want to live in a Totalitarian system, stopping the rights of others, just remember folks, you may end up that your views may be in the minority.

    Go watch 1984.

    Freedom is worth dying for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. markra (200 comments) says:

    That also goes for other religions and not just Islam.

    Democracy and freedom for all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. markra (200 comments) says:

    @kowtown

    we need a constitution that enshrines human rights for all people.

    It should be enshrined and need at least 80-90 % votes to change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. markra (200 comments) says:

    Maybe the rights could be enshrined by referendum so politicians can’t change it, only can it be changed by referendum.

    Any constitutional lawyers out there?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. Aredhel777 (278 comments) says:

    An entrenched constitution would be used by liberal judges to effectively legislate against everything you believe in, Markra. Why has nobody learned from Roe v Wade or other cases where judges read stuff into statutes that wasn’t there…….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. markra (200 comments) says:

    @Redhel

    It may not be perfect, but closer to the will of the people.

    But what you and I believe is not absolute and more important than what other people believe in.

    I would trust in the machinations of a Justice system and the democratic process than some corrupt theocracy or totalitarian system, where you are told what you have to believe in.

    If religious or some moral theocracy got into power ,you could wave good by to your freedom to choose.

    That’s why I think think Islam is a major threat into the future. A true Islamic Theocracy would not allow the right of any opposing views to exist.

    My idea of a constitution would be for example, that until say 90% of NZ wanted Sharia law people would still have a right to choose.

    Anyway hopefully I will be long dead before that kind of nightmare could possible happen happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. markra (200 comments) says:

    What people believe in today, may change tomorrow.

    I feel though that the right for people to choose should be absolute.

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

    Daigotsu, how does that factor into it at all? Still doesn’t answer the question – how is the paedophile’s sexual desire not an orientation (even if he never acts on it), but the desire of a homosexual is an orientation? Maybe the paedophile was born that way; has a genetic predisposition to desire in that way. That is the reasoning people have been suggesting regarding homosexuality isn’t it? Why doesn’t it apply to paedophiles as well?

    It comes down to two choices – either they are BOTH orientations, or NEITHER are. Which choice do you support?

    Fletch,

    Few days late in responding to this, but:

    Yes, in so far as paedophilia and heterosexuality describe patterns of sexual attraction, paedophilia and heterosexuality are both orientations. By the same token, paedophilia, heterosexuality and bestiality are all orientations, I suppose. It’s just that paedophilia and bestiality are orientations towards beings that can’t consent, while heterosexuality and homosexuality are orientations towards beings that can consent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. Pete George (22,853 comments) says:

    Key supports having a debate on marriage equality and would vote for a bill if introduced to parliament.

    Key: ‘Lets have debate’ on gay marriage

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

    “I’m not going to bring a bill into the House,” he said.

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

    It will depend on whether Louisa Wall’s proposed bill gets drawn from the ballot.

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

    Wat Dabney
    You as usual are incorrect yet again.
    Please stop quoting the bible until you have read it through afew times and have a grasp of the braod doctrines.

    I just love posters like you 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 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.
    Nuff said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,563 comments) says:

    Michael McKee. The bible also talks about being ok to take slaves and has more incest than a season of Jerry Springer and Jeremy Kyle rolled into one. You’re just picking the quotes that suit you and your bigoted ideas rather than looking at the fact that you’re not allowing couples that love each other the chance to marry.

    The bible is woefully out of date. Usually with old books of fiction they’d update it.

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

    Yes the bible does recount just who and what we are at times doesn’t it?
    Touch a nerve for you liberal?
    Whenever I read it I am reminded How much He cares and Loves us but also that I need to keep a short account with God.

    I am not picking quotes but clearly demonstrating from the scripture that marriage is shown as an integral part of God’s plan for relationships, family and society.
    “A man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife”.
    This is enunciated both in the OT & then the NT by Jesus himself and I think He would have a better idea of man and his needs than you or I.

    You can call people as many names as you choose that doesn’t change the fact that many people sincerely think that marriage is for men and women not the same gender and some of us point to scripture to show the age old connection between faith and society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,563 comments) says:

    No nerves were touched Michael. You obviously didn’t read the bit about love or acceptance and your pick and mix religous system seems rife with hypocrisy and ignorance. Considering I don’t believe in jesus or your god – why would they know more than you or me?

    Why do you think homosexuals are 2nd class citizens?
    Why are you so anti allowing consenting adults to do as they wish if they love each other?
    What gives you the right to tell people what they can do with their lives?

    None of this silly god business – what about you? Or are you hiding behind your bigoted behaviour behind your bible and god?

    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.