MPs on same sex marriage
May 19th, 2012 at 2:03 pm by David FarrarBryce Edwards has a collection of quotes from MPs and candidates on same sex marriage from his pre-election interviews. A summary:
- Kevin Hague – in favour
- Stephen Whittington – in favour
- Annette King – in favour
- Clare Curran – in favour
- Catherine Delahunty – in favour
- David Shearer – in favour
- Holly Walker – in favour
- Carol Beaumont – in favour but not high priority
- Grant Robertson – personally in favour but Labour policy just to modernise relationship law
- Heather Roy – would vote in favour but state should not be involved
- Rahui Katene – undecided, thinks civil unions are enough
- Simon Bridges – undecided, but relaxed about civil unions
- David Cunliffe – supports civil unions, but guided by public opinion on gay marriage
- Hone Harawira – against
- Peter Dunne – against, as civil unions sufficient
- Winston Peters – against, wants a referendum
- Bill English – against, has changed view on civil unions which he is now relaxed about
- Tim Macindoe – against
Related posts:
- Civil Unions vs Gay Marriage
- The politics of the same sex marriage issue
- PM says gay marriage doesn’t affect his marriage to Bronagh
- Same Sex Marriage
May 19th, 2012 at 2:15 pm
Just a globalist agenda. Nothing new in politics
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 2:17 pm
I’ve added those to my collection of MP responses and media indications. Several added yesterday: MPs on same sex marriage.
Most responses are pro marriage equality, the negatives are keeping quiet about it.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 2:20 pm
» David Cunliffe – supports civil unions, but guided by public opinion on gay marriage
1) How the fuck is he supposed to accurately discern the precise “public opinion?”
2) What other issues does he decide for himself, no matter what the “public opinion” is?
Just a globalist agenda. Nothing new in politics
Agree wiki, but also add, this particular globalist agenda item has been made possible only by the millions of profoundly useful idiots on both sides of the political divide, without whose idiocy none of this would have ever left the starting gates. So thanks to all of those idiots, you utter fucking morons.
At least everyone knows who they all are. That’s about the only good thing about it.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 2:25 pm
Hone Harawira: “I’m not a great fan of society of huge choice”.
I think that says enough. Harawira does not believe in choice.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 2:29 pm
Shows how shit useless our politicians are – ready to dump all the cultural norms of forever (which exist for a real and profound reason) to appease an noisy minority of narcissists
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Three in the above list are openly gay or bisexual. Interesting that only one of them is unequivocally “in favour”. Surely there are much more important issues than this?
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 2:57 pm
I would have thought this would a ‘conscience’ vote when it happens
Vote:['conscience' - ha hahahaha ha ...oops ... sorry]
but any way, if you are not towing the Party line, you vote to reflect your electorate
but all these MPs have made their minds up already
except perhaps Cunliffe [and Winston, who wants to say both No, and Yes]
May 19th, 2012 at 3:00 pm
Yep, the statists (those who want more power for the state) are same-sex marriage supporters.
Same-sex marriage is an artificial creation of the state, which in order for the state to enforce, necessitates that the state grow in power.
Be careful what you wish for.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 3:16 pm
Lucia,
“Yep, the statists (those who want more power for the state) are same-sex marriage supporters. ”
Well I favour drastically reducing the size of the state, and I also favour same-sex marriage.
More precisely, I advocate that the state shall not act in a discriminatory way.
So your argument above is simply false. In fact, the reverse it true: those who support a discriminatory form of state marriage are the ones advocating state-backed social-engineering.
By all means lobby for that, but don’t pretend it is anything but what it is.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 3:19 pm
Wat,
And then there are the clueless.
Read this: Same sex marriage creates a more powerful state
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Lucia,
Thank you for the link. As you say, clueless.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 3:31 pm
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Who cares? Gay marriage, civil unions…I think there are far more important things for the government to do
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Contrarian,
Without functional families, the state itself will collapse. So, it is kinda important.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 3:56 pm
You do realise that the state allowing gay marriage is not the same thing as it forcing you to marry a poof, don’t you?
Your marriage, and everybody else’s marriage, will be totally unaffected by such a change.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 4:03 pm
We already have Civil Union in New Zealand.
i go with the idea that a ‘Marriage’ is between a man and a woman.
Question is, are these freaks so insecure that a Civil Union isn’t good enough for them ?
Why not ? (love to hear that argument)
They can’t accept, ‘ different but equal.’
They are so insecure they have to be, ‘Same.’
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Wat,
LOL! You’ve reminded me of one of my favourite quotes from yet another post of mine:
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 4:04 pm
Haha, awesome how David Cunliffe tries to have a bob each way.
Vote:Perfectly epitomises his style of politics – telling people what they want to hear.
May 19th, 2012 at 4:11 pm
Question is, are these freaks so insecure that a Civil Union isn’t good enough for them ?
Why not ? (love to hear that argument)
So would I bereal but for some reason whenever this is raised there is total, deafening silence from the proponents.
Isn’t that peculiar.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 4:24 pm
DG, Contrarian – there are far more important things to do for many people, but for a significant minority, to be recognised as having equal partnership rights is very important. If (modern) anomalies in the law effectively gave you only poartial rights that most people had you might see it as important to.
Marriage equality has no importance to me, personally. But I do think the concept of equal rights for all partnerships is very important.
And that’s another reason why it’s important, to make a statement against that sort of prejudice and put down of someone who is a bit different.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 4:28 pm
Lucia,
“Same-sex marriage makes us all chattels of the state, because the state, in presuming to define the substance rather than the accidents of marriage, has made marriage itself a state artifact.”
That’s one of your favourite quotes?
So your argument is that if the state defines marriage in a way that fits with your prejudices then that doesn’t make us chattels, but if it defines it in any other way then it means we are.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 4:30 pm
“Question is, are these freaks so insecure that a Civil Union isn’t good enough for them ?
Why not ? (love to hear that argument)”
Surely it’s a question of equality before the law and whether the state can discriminate against people for their race, religion or sexuality.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 4:42 pm
> Gay marriage, civil unions…I think there are far more important things for the government to do
Haha yes it’s not like the government can do two things at once.
The government had more important things to do than to give tax cuts to the wealthy…but they found the time to give tax cuts to the wealthy. If you’re going to argue against gay marriage, at least try to be internally consistent.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 4:45 pm
I’m not wealthy, but I got a tax cut.
Someone should grow up.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 4:51 pm
Will homosexual (applying the term in the proper way – that is male and female homosexuality) “marrige” ensure the continuation of the species? That, afterall, was/is the purpose of “marriage” in our culture, was it not?
My position is that if two people wish to live together and be legally bound one to the other, that is their affair. Civil Union does that. ‘Nuff said.
Let us now concentrate of issues of real importance like the economy, the ETS/Carbon tax scam – and our deficit.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 4:51 pm
Here’s Joe Hockey arguing against gay marriage. Well, his argument is so pathetic that he seems to make a good case for gay marriage.
Vhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuIbEJz23uY
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 4:55 pm
> Will homosexual “marrige” ensure the continuation of the species?
So you would ban an 80 year old man and woman from marrying because they can’t procreate? Or maybe a woman who’s had a hysterectomy would not be allowed to marry, and a man whose sperm count is too low to father kids?
The nutbars are out in force today.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 4:56 pm
I think there are far more important things for the government to do
Actually, the government does have what it thinks are more important things to do, that’s why they aren’t proposing anything with this. It’s the sort of bill that opposition parties have time to work on and try to get picked in the ballot. That’s why Labour’s Lousa Wall is the one who’s proposing this.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 5:00 pm
Wat,
Well, I know what category to put you into – the crafty type.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 5:09 pm
“Will homosexual (applying the term in the proper way – that is male and female homosexuality) “marrige” ensure the continuation of the species? That, afterall, was/is the purpose of “marriage” in our culture, was it not?”
Because it’s not biologically possible to have children outside of marriage, you mean?
We need to have a chat…
“My position is that if two people wish to live together and be legally bound one to the other, that is their affair. Civil Union does that. ‘Nuff said.”
End the state’s sanction and enforcement of marriage altogether? Much of the argument in these threads has advocated just such a position: churches can perform whatever magical ceremonies they wish, whilst the state keeps out of it altogether and grants no special privileges.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 5:10 pm
The real problem is, that all people in favour of this fail to see that there is NO DISCRIMINATION here at all.
and Pete George, for you to claim a significant minority is utter bullshit.
There are approximately 3% of the population who are gay. Of those, the vocal section of that would be less than 10% – so we have a very vocal, and I might say radical, small minority of people – .3% of the population – who are screaming discrimination. I know a number of homosexual people, and they couldn’t give a shit about getting married, and they are in committed relationships – many of them don’t even care about a civil union – they already have a legal contractual arrangement. They are happy with their relationship, and I have no problem with that – it is their choice how to live their lives and who they decide to sleep with.
The meaning of marriage, for the past few thousand years – BTW this is not just a Christian thing, pagan societies from time immemorial have fostered and maintained marriage in traditional terminology as the basic unit of society – is the “Union of One man and One woman, for the purpose of raising children.” This is simply following Natural Law – the complimentarity of a man and a woman to procreate.
There is no chance of procreation in a same sex union. Furthermore, homosexual sex is against the Natural Law.
This is purely a strategy to conform society to the way that a very minor segment of the community wants it to be – a narcissistic attitude in the extreme.
So if they succeed, and society at large decided, so that there could be differentiation between marriage in its changed meaning, to coin a new word that meant what marriage used to mean, then within a generation, there would once again be screams of discrimination.
This continued promotion of so called “Gay Marriage” by Farrar and Slater is becoming a bit sickening.
In any event, even if the law is changed to allow Gay Marriage, it will be a hollow victory, because it will be marriage in name only – it cannot be what Marriage presently is.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 5:17 pm
Yeah but Don, isn’t the whole point that while marriage might theoretically be about raising children, in practice it isn’t and hasn’t been for a long time?
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 5:17 pm
ross69
4.55pm.
The straw man expert is out again.
Who has said anything about banning an 80 Y/o from marrying.
Dickhead.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 5:20 pm
Don the Kiwi – what sized minority should qualify for equal rights? Where would the cutoff be for you?
It’s not just gay people that equality like marriage equality is important.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 5:23 pm
“The real problem is, that all people in favour of this fail to see that there is NO DISCRIMINATION here at all.”
Apart from the discrimination against homosexuals, you mean? The very subject under discussion.
“BTW this is not just a Christian thing, pagan societies from time immemorial have fostered and maintained marriage in traditional terminology as the basic unit of society”
Is their slavekeeping also thereby justified, on the grounds that it’s a quaint old custom?
Apparently so.
And your argument, such as it is, appears to sanction all historical forms of marriage, such as polygamy. We can conclude then that you favour the state recognising polygamous marriages?
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 5:24 pm
salt.
I think your point is that because there are so many divorces, or so many solo parents, that disproves traditional marriage.
I don’t think so. I think society still needs an attainable ideal. I don’t think an enduring social institution should be broken down, simply because there is a segment of society that does not have the self discipline or right judgement to know when not to practice hide the sausage. After all, the much greater majority of the population still believe in marriage as it has been understood for millenia. I think a good example of how society breaks down without marriage is the Soviet Union in the first 10 years or so of its existence.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 5:30 pm
wat.
There is very little discrimination today aginst homosexuals. And here, again, another straw man builder. There is no parallell with slavery.
Ii used the word “Traditional” marriage. Polygamy was never accepted as traditional in western society, with rare exceptions.
Pete George.
You make my point. The meaning of “Marriage” would have to be changed, or diluted – as much of traditional morality has been in today’s society.
So we coin another word which means what marriage currently means – have we introduced another form of discrimination?
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 5:35 pm
I think much confusion surrounds what marriage is. Putting aside for a moment the procreation factor, the current societal focus appears to be “a committed loving relationship”. That is only part of the equation.
There is as much about about mutual self sacrifice in marriage is there is about the other two factors – its not just about having one’s own brand of sexual practice recognised as a good, which seems to be the main thrust of the radical homosexual “marriage” agenda.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Hey wat @ 4.30
i must admit that i am one who can’t figure out what your act is. ( maybe you’r a confused gay)
Maybe if you could answer this so some of us could get a handle on your grey point of view.
(no one wants to dismiss you out of hand as a fuken idiot)
If, as you say, it’s a question of equality befare the law, then how do you see the difference,
before the law between a civil union and a marriage ?
And when you can’t find an answer, why not just STFU
Love to hear if you have an answer to the genuine question above, if not, well then,
Vote:where does that leave you ?
May 19th, 2012 at 5:46 pm
As ‘Don the Kiwi’ has pointed out marriage in one form or another has been with us for a long time. Why not go a step further & work out why the institution evolved. My view is, that stripped of the religious & social crap the concept of marriage has accumulated over time, it is nothing more than a support agreement. ie man provides food, shelter & protection, the female bears & raises children.
As such the state should be relegated to registering such agreements & the partners, male, female or indeterminate can choose whatever ceremony that milks their goats.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 5:52 pm
bereal (1,887) Says:
May 19th, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Its about the kids.
With Homosexual marriage being legal they then can adopt.
The children are a nations treasure and the basis and reason for the family and the regeneration of society.
They desperately need the affirmation of acceptance and adoption of children will provide this.
It is also about diluting the brand of marriage both for the statists and for the activists.
Like the Arabs attacking the Jews this will not stop the activists need this.
Alongside Homosexual marriage come the hate crime laws to be use against anyone who opposes them.
Vote:It doesn’t change the fact that they go against design and it is an unnatural and unhealthy lifestyle.
May 19th, 2012 at 5:53 pm
I think all MP’s should be in favour of same sex marriage.
In one generation we would be rid of the cunts!
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 5:56 pm
Don the Kiwi (789) Says:
May 19th, 2012 at 5:24 pm
attainable ideal. NO.
It is first prize for Kids and should drive all Government policy and funding to reinforce it.
First prize is a father and mother of the kids who love cherish and esteem each other bringing the kids up till they leave home and then forming a multi-generational family network with their children and their children.
That is first prize and always will be, reality is all others are 2nd or 3rd prize.
Homosxeuals can never be that.
Vote:They don’t procreate as their lifestyle is unnatural.
May 19th, 2012 at 5:57 pm
I don’t think gay marriage opposers get how things work. If your religion says you can’t work on Sundays, it means that YOU cannot work on Sundays. I can work all the Sundays I damn well please. If you religion is against gay marriage, that doesn’t mean you outlaw it. It means you cannot marry someone of the same gender. Dumb fucks.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 6:16 pm
My view is, that stripped of the religious & social crap the concept of marriage has accumulated over time, it is nothing more than a support agreement. ie man provides food, shelter & protection, the female bears & raises children.
nasska this is the heart of the misunderstanding. Marriage is not, as people think, a mere “legal” contract. Marriage goes to the heart of what it means to be human, in people’s subconscious minds. This is because, subconsciously, human beings equate marriage with the family.
This is why gays want to appropriate it. This is why they agitate 24/7/365 for nothing more than a mere name, “marriage.” They rely on the fact 99.9% of people, are fooled into thinking that, a name is all it is.
It’s not.
It never has been.
Why else, do you think, gays didn’t give it all up once they gained the bastion of “civil unions?”
The only answer..the ONLY answer, is because they want the label. And why do they want the label? It’s a mere label, after all, isn’t it?
Your average gay wouldn’t have a clue. They think it’s because it’s “discwimination” because that’s what they’ve been told. But why? Ask your average gay why they want the label. Ask them. See what they say.
Social engineering all the way.
So transparent.
So tragic.
So much at stake.
Human civilisation.
And so many useful idiots think it’s all about “human wights.” How profoundly fucked in the head can you possibli be?
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 6:29 pm
Nasska,
If that happens, then women will become second or third class citizens in society. Much like we have been throughout human history until our status was elevated first by Judaism and then by Christianity. And yes, I have another post for this one: Same-sex marriage will devalue women in society.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 6:37 pm
LJ
Again referring to ‘Don the Kiwi’s’ 5.10pm comment, probably 0.03% of the adult population are in the slightest bit concerned about gay marriage. They are, of course, a strident minority & they will continue to throw tantrums until they get what they want.
I accept as you say that they want the ‘label’….I’m not so certain that the reasons you espouse are the right ones. My guess is that from homosexuality being struck from the crime laws a few decades ago until the establishment of civil unions they have succeeded in getting everything they want. They have learnt that if they scream long enough & loud enough that they will get their own way. Why should this be the exception?
For what it’s worth I agree that the stench of the social engineers is very close to this issue.
I don’t, however, see marriage as more than a support agreement nor do I accept that any subconscious drive is behind marriage vows. Stripped of religious & cultural factors what else is it?
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 6:37 pm
bereal,
“If, as you say, it’s a question of equality befare the law, then how do you see the difference, before the law between a civil union and a marriage ? And when you can’t find an answer, why not just STFU”
Maybe you’re right.
There’s no difference.
So we’ll just keep the one institution shall we: Marriage.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 6:42 pm
@ Don. I think that marriage, to all intents and purposes, is no longer about having children. Sure, some married people do have kids, but some don’t – and no-one is trying to tell the childless ones they shouldn’t be married, or tell those who don’t want children that they can’t get married if they don’t intend to procreate. It’s generally accepted that two straight people who love each other can get married simply because they love each other. Their baby-making intentions or lack thereof are not taken into account.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 6:42 pm
“For what it’s worth I agree that the stench of the social engineers is very close to this issue.
Agreed. Having the state enforce ones prejudices is social engineering at its purest.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 6:43 pm
Don’t panic nasska.
Though a lovely chap, as you are undoubtedly are, I have no desire to trade Flossy in for you!
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 6:48 pm
Again referring to ‘Don the Kiwi’s’ 5.10pm comment, probably 0.03% of the adult population are in the slightest bit concerned about gay marriage. They are, of course, a strident minority & they will continue to throw tantrums until they get what they want.
nasska this isn’t a democratic issue it’s a social engineering one. Look, if the commies had told the Russians in the 1900′s precisely what they were going to do between 1917-99, how many would have “voted” for the revolution?
Same thing here. Same thing. Yes. It is the same thing. No. That is not, repeat not, a hyperbole. I wish it wasn’t like that, but it is.
O.T.Y.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 6:49 pm
Lucia Maria
As the influence of religion waned & the social pressure exerted by pre 1970′s society lessened many couples either didn’t marry or delayed marriage until years after they started their families. I accept that not all relationships were destined to last but many did & are still going strong. I have never noticed any difference in the success or happiness of their children from those born in holy wedlock.
If the absence of marriage vows demeans women how do you explain the miserable existence of legally wedded Muslim women? No lack of religion or ceremony there yet their status is slightly south of the family goat.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 6:51 pm
Kevin Hague and Grant Robertson in favour of same-sex marriage – that’s a no-brainer!
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 6:51 pm
Johnboy
Flossy will be relieved!
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 6:52 pm
“probably 0.03% of the adult population are in the slightest bit concerned about gay marriage”
I think they’re all here aren’t they?
And apparently now trying to maintain that the issue is totally insignificant, whilst at the same time warning about the end of society and possibly the end of the species if it is allowed.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 6:52 pm
Only if I do marry you nasska!
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 6:55 pm
Liberals are so dumb
You will moan and moan about the number of kids being raised on the DPB and yet you deny and undermine the institution of Marriage which exists to ensure that both parents take responsibility for their offspring.
The more you have weakened it the greater the number of children that need to be supported by the taxpayer – and the more prisons you need to warehouse them when they get older and grow up anti social.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 6:55 pm
ROTFL
Orwell would be proud of such doublespeak, Lucia.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 6:57 pm
Johnboy
I could never break up a relationship between you & ewe!
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Nasska,
I have. Those of my generation who were raised by divorced parents have been far less likely to maintain long-term marriages themselves. Several of my first cousins come into this category.
Widespread homosexuality.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 7:06 pm
Still if we were, ow you say Francais, it could be you, me and Ewe nasska.
Perhaps Yvette could become involved at this stage!
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 7:07 pm
When people get same sex marriage will they be happy?
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 7:10 pm
LJ
….”this isn’t a democratic issue it’s a social engineering one. Look, if the commies had told the Russians in the 1900′s precisely what they were going to do between 1917-99, how many would have “voted” for the revolution?”…..
No trouble seeing where you’re coming from but you are presuming that the 0.03% are going to successful in undermining marriage as it exists now. The way I see it is that some people will carry on in the traditional way of marriage then kids but an increasing number of couples don’t see a formal marriage as necessary or complimentary to their relationship.
Since most of us have grown up under these conditions & the sky is still overhead why does marriage or the lack thereof worry the horses?
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 7:14 pm
If we encouraged more children of poor families to become gay we’d have fewer unwanted pregnancies.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 7:16 pm
It is just utterly ridiculous how often DPF is posting on this.
It is blatantly obvious that he see’s this as a very important issue, perhaps even urgent.
Gotta keep that 0.0003% of the population happy at all costs!!!!!!!
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 7:17 pm
Lucia Maria
1. Since the parents of your cousins got divorced they must have been married. If the future happiness of the kids was jeopardised by the failure of that marriage what then of the children of a happy couple who never married but stayed together? Surely they are better off & if they are then marriage or the lack of it is not a factor.
2) “Widespread homosexuality.”…….far be it for me to disagree but the presence of the goat could indicate beastiality as another possibility.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 7:20 pm
Well I favour drastically reducing the size of the state, and I also favour same-sex marriage.
Hmmm.. the word “idiot” springs to mind.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 7:23 pm
Nasska,
1) Yes, the parents of my cousins were married. WWII, unfortunately, killed one of the parents and put the other one into action and subsequently scattered the family. The point being that most of their children and then their children after them and then in one case her child, have not been able to form long term relationships since.
2) Yes, in pagan societies (and I include Islam), men will have sex with anything. Not all men, thankfully, but as there are less restrictions upon behaviour, then if you feel like it, why not?
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 7:25 pm
In that case, ole Johnboy over in Wainui must definitely be pagan!
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 7:26 pm
Hey wat @ 6.37
Quite a good response, however, it’s so wrong.
You say…
‘Why cant we keep the one institution, marriage?”
Answer, because, even though both have the same legal rights under the
Law in New Zealand one is a union between a man and a woman and one is not.
They are different. Surely you can see that.
If you can accept that the legal rights are the same and equal but they are different, then.
What is your objection to both definitions living side by side ? ( that is the crux of the question)
Love to hear why you object to different descriptions of different unions even if they
both have equal rights.
What is your objection ?
Bottom line. Why do gays need to feel they can, ‘ Marry’ ?
They can do everything else except adopt the term.
And they can’t because they can’t marry.
What is it about that that you can’t get ?
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 7:28 pm
you are presuming that the 0.03% are going to successful in undermining marriage as it exists now,
Mate it’s not the 0.03%. It’s the media, it’s the useful idiots in the churches, it’s the useful idiots in the politics arenas, all of whom fail to see what it’s really about and doing, and who think it’s all about helping people and if we don’t do that then that means we’re all big bad meanies.
Subconscious influence over generations nasska. By the time your great grandchildren come to get married and what “marriage” means to people in society then, is what it’s about. That’s what they plant, today.
And this means nasska, your great grandchildren will not know what a “family” is. They will think the usual “family” is their brother or sister always has a different father from the one they had, they have had four-five “fathers” in their lifetime to date, some of them were really mean, their mother has had six-seven “marriages” etc.
This is why the gays want to do this nasska. Why anyone intelligent who is not gay is letting them inflict this on us in the name of “human wights,” I have no idea.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 7:28 pm
@lucia Maria – while homosexuality might well be common in the Islamic world, it is most definitely frowned upon by the state there, to a much greater extent than simply not allowing them to marry. Your logic seems flawed.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 7:31 pm
More a Paganini of the sex act milkey.
A virtuoso of the highest calibre I have been told!
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 7:32 pm
Even if the ‘traditional’ concept of marriage was ever all that much of a good thing, it is gone for good. We have moved on – multiple relationships are just about the norm. The .03% seem to be the ones hysterically opposed to any change.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 7:33 pm
Lucia Maria
1. You have missed the bit about the children of a long term yet unmarried relationship. Are they better off than the kids from a broken relationship or those suffering the loss of a parent?
2. Totally agree.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 7:33 pm
Holy sheep, Johnboy, can you even interpret the baaaas?
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 7:38 pm
LJ
Like I mentioned before….I can see where you are coming from but you are still relying too heavily on a crystal ball.
It could end up as you say but equally possible is a religious renaissance……if that happens the pendulum will swing the other way.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 7:43 pm
Of course milkey. Sheep speak in a simple Indo-Arabic tongue. Easy to understand if you listen carefully.
Try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apRYXtQuDGs
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 7:45 pm
What did you think the sheep said?
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 7:45 pm
” Hone Harawira – against ”
Spin that one Bradbury. I think we can safely say the leadership of the Labour Party is in the right hands.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 7:49 pm
I’m pretty sure they are saying “get that thing away from me, Johnboy”.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 7:50 pm
A lot of couples I know aren’t married, those that do get married these days pony up to the tune of over $20,000. Marriage is becoming an expensive and quaint institution, but unfortunately there is some discrimination in being in a civil upon as opposed to “married” which is why it’s an issue that won’t die.
Vote:It’s a generational thing. As soon as the babyBoomers are through, marriage will be extended to any couple professing a commitment to a relationship in which children can be raised and whether or not the churches are on board won’t matter. The state definition of marriage can be entirely separate from what churches defines as “marriage. The fabric of society won’t fail unless all gay people are socialists. Following that, the criminalisation of drugs would be the next wall to fall, eliminating the stranglehold of cartels on vulnerable societies.
May 19th, 2012 at 7:51 pm
Nasska,
The experience in my family and friends has been of marriages, not long term partnerships.
According to the stats, long-term partnerships rarely survive to the child’s 16th birthday. I have one friend who is in a long-term partnership, but her oldest is 13 now, I think. I do know that it’s better for children to be raised by married parents because they have made a public commitment to each other, and generally expect to have children, and therefore are far less likely to split up. There is more to it than that, in how they treat each other. Women are much safer by a factor of 16x being married than in a defacto-relationship. But stats are stats, and individuals will always beat the odds.
Sooo.. yes, children being raised by those who have committed, but not married are better off than those from a broken relationship or those suffering the loss of a parent, would be my answer.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 7:53 pm
This issue is simply not an issue.
Most Homosexual people will not get married and most have no desire to be married.
Where else in society does such an absolutely miniscule minority get to fundamentally redefine an institution that hundreds of thousands of heterosexual couples participate in.
It is utterly ridiculous to even put this on the radar at the moment there are far more pressing issues.
Once again, narcissism in certain parts of society is celebrated as a f@cking virtue and this is what you get, a bunch of incredibly selfish people that take what belongs to others, redefine it, and chuck it on the scrap heap of history.
Don’t for a second think that isn’t what this is really about.
Just a pack of ignorant social nihilists that stubbornly refuse to engage brain for even five friggin seconds.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 7:54 pm
Not bad milkey. Have you ever considered an interpreters job in either Saudi Arabia or Wainui.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 7:55 pm
What was the score down at Wise Park today? Wainui still riding high?
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 7:56 pm
Pass!
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 7:57 pm
Piri is still a hero though whoever he plays for!
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 7:59 pm
Piri is gay??!!
Oh the humanity!!
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 8:03 pm
According to the interweb, MSP downed Wainui, but the mighty Hutt OB continued their winning ways. I’m pretty sure Piri wasn’t playing this arvo, as I’ve just seen him on tele playing for the Blues
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 8:05 pm
Here is a post from an American site I visit, and where the issue is a hotter potato than it is here. This guy is a conservative Catholic, and gives a Catholic viewpoint which the majority of Christians and conservatives agree with. I think for the most part, the opinion is balanced. At the end of it, he talks about the physical abuse and attacks that Christians recieve at the hands of radical homosexualists – thankfully, it hasn’t quite got to that point here – yet.
“Since “gay marriage” is all the rage, especially since Biden and Obama decided to make public statements on the matter, it is virtually all I have been hearing about in my own online networks. Debates are raging, friendships are being tested, hostility is everywhere. One thing emerges out of this chaos more clearly than anything else: the gay agenda, which I define as a radical political program with the aim of legitimizing homosexuality in all spheres of human existence, is based on the hysterical repetition of outrageous lies. It is not unlike the completely fraudulent “war on women”, a war that was supposedly declared when a number of Americans publicly resisted the idea that they ought to pay for other women’s birth control.
In the case of “gay marriage”, the big lie is that there is some desire on the part of conservatives and Christians in this country to actually deny some right, some liberty, some freedom to people who identify themselves and live as homosexuals. As abhorrent, disordered and immoral as I find the “gay lifestyle” to be, the truth is that – and here I speak for virtually every conservative Christian I know or have read – we really are not the least bit interested in micro-managing the sex-lives of our fellow citizens. We have absolutely no desire to have uniformed gendarmes kick in your bedroom doors to make sure no acts of sodomy are taking place in the middle of the night. The only thing more repugnant to me than such acts would be the prospect of becoming comfortable with the sort of routine invasions of personal privacy that would be required to ensure that no one was living out their life as a homosexual.
To be even more specific, to the gay couple we say: we do not care if you visit one another in the hospital. We do not care if you grant one another medical power of attorney. We do not care if you jointly own property. We do not care if you leave property for each other inherit when one of you dies. We do not care if you own a home together and live in it. We do not care if you get dressed up, rent a local hall, stage whatever sort of ceremony you like, and even refer to yourselves as “married.”
We may object, on different grounds, some secular, some religious, to your adopting children. After all, there are now other human beings in the equation- and there seems to be at least some kind of moral consensus across political lines that the interests of children do sometimes take precedence over the rights and privileges of adults. In any case, its something we can safely set aside for the moment.
To reiterate, this time specifically to the radical homosexual: on all the issues that concern the consenting adults only, we don’t care. Of course we care in the abstract that you are leading lives of grave sin in open defiance of God, but then so do millions of “heterosexuals” who fornicate, commit adultery, use artificial contraception, sterilize themselves, and so on. Not every sin can or should be a matter for the state to concern itself with, and we are content to let God judge in these matters; but no sin, and this brings us closer to the main point here, can ever be called a virtue, no evil can ever be called a good, by any Christian with a conscience, or by any citizen who cares about the integrity of society.
You can live as you want, engage in whatever sort of contracts you like, conduct any sort of ceremonies you please. But there is one thing you cannot have, and it is the one thing you seek through this radical political agenda, these hysterical protests and complaints about Christians: our approval. It cannot possibly be about anything else, because it is really the only thing you are missing. You want to live in a world in which everyone regards what you do and how you live not only as normal, but as a positive good. And your attempts to legalize “gay marriage” are about this and this alone. It is not about “equal rights” that you already possess, it is not about the freedom to openly identify as gay, which you already have. It is about using the power of the state to force society to recognize your living arrangements and lifestyle choices as legitimate. It is about policing the thoughts and opinions of the American people. It is about sharing prestige with properly and truly married couples. It is about envy and resentment, and a deep, abiding hatred of religion in general and Christianity in particular.
Let me be blunt: your disordered lifestyles are not equal to the traditional marriage or the traditional family, which have served as the foundation of civilization since its very beginnings. You do not deserve equal prestige, and nor, for that matter, do “straight” couples who actively choose not to procreate. And you have no right to such things. You have no right to have the state give you extra benefits, tax breaks, or anything of the sort – you have no right to have your romantic choices ratified by society. You don’t have the right to go through life without being heckled or bullied, as you heckle and bully the Christians you hate, as you mock with the most disgusting outrages imaginable all that we hold sacred.
In the face of your tyranny, your bullying, your mockery, your boundless hate, we will continue to persevere.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 8:08 pm
Is there anyone in this thread who is gay who has an opinion?
I personally don’t give a s**t – been with my wife for almost 30 years and we only got married because society made it quite difficult to be partners 20 odd years ago – all sorts of problems ranging from the telephone account to the bank account to inheritance issues if one of us carked it. My wife keeps her maiden name and we find it humorous as I am often called Mr “My Wife’s Maiden name”
The only real argument I have seen here against same sex marriage is that it opens the door to adoption and civil union by implication is not a sufficient commitment to enable adoption. This, of course, assumes one is against adoption by same sex parents. Why? On average adopted parents are well above the norm as they are vetted.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 8:22 pm
I’m not sure gay folk would generally be comfortable with the Kiwiblog style of debate. I may be generalising but, hey, that’s a KB thing too. I’m a bit puzzled though by the ‘gays can have every legal right, but not marriage’ line.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 8:24 pm
@MM
I think this may be the 1st time I’ve agreed with you …… try and look uncomfortable
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 8:24 pm
Yes. Progress. But the most important social gains for women such as enfranchisement and equal access to the workforce have come about because of liberal and polictical ideological constructs, not theological or traditional constructs.
Would you rather not have the vote Lucia?
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 8:35 pm
I personally don’t give a s**t – been with my wife for almost 30 years and we only got married because society made it quite difficult to be partners 20 odd years ago – all sorts of problems ranging from the telephone account to the bank account to inheritance issues if one of us carked it.
Oh for f@cks sake, yet another person who openly declares he has no respect for the institution in question, and then decides that the institution in question could be redefined and he wouldn’t care.
Oh really! wow.
Some of us didn’t get married because we wanted a better friggin phone account.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 8:40 pm
Don the Kiwi:The meaning of marriage, for the past few thousand years – BTW this is not just a Christian thing, pagan societies from time immemorial have fostered and maintained marriage in traditional terminology as the basic unit of society – is the “Union of One man and One woman, for the purpose of raising children.” This is simply following Natural Law – the complimentarity of a man and a woman to procreate.
Not true. Societies throughout history have had different ideas on what constitutes marriage. Some societies have allowed for gay marriage.
Furthermore, homosexual sex is against the Natural Law.
More nonsense. Homosexuality is biological in origin and occurs in animals.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 8:42 pm
Who the fuck said that? I couldn’t find the culprit!
Judasim has always been an almost irrelevant, tiny, fringe cult – and until the Zionist project, thankfully, peaceable – and to call the advent of the barbarous Christians “progress”, Scott, is just displaying ignorance of history.
What Christians have done, and are doing to this day, in the name of Jesus is simply hideous.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 8:42 pm
Shunda barunda
There must have been a reason!
A discount on your power bill?
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 8:43 pm
Michael McKee:It doesn’t change the fact that they go against design and it is an unnatural and unhealthy lifestyle
There is no design, and it is natural.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 8:43 pm
Well said, chiz.
And true, too, which is always a bonus on Kiwiblog.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 8:44 pm
Luc – it was Lucia that said it.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 8:47 pm
Luc
…”What Christians have done, and are doing to this day, in the name of Jesus is simply hideous.”….
And how many virgin she goats were you bribed to make that statement?
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 8:48 pm
Don the Kiwi:In the face of your tyranny, your bullying, your mockery, your boundless hate, we will continue to persevere.
A good summary of how many gay people feel.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 8:54 pm
@Shunda
Well done not a single point about the pros and cons about gay marriage but a criticism of the person. That has contributed so much to this discussion.
the point is that a relationship is not defined by being married and in my case my relationship has survived a lot longer than the average marriage – even before I got married.
You are selective in your comments – there were many and numerous reasons to getting married I related to but you picked on one to try and make a point, badly. They were all practical and imposed upon us.
And yes – considering the amount of divorce and single parent families – marriage is no longer THE INSTITUTION and it pretty much lost value starting in the 60s
So? Why stop gays getting married – which they are as likely to make a going concern as the average couple? They are less likely to cause single parent families with multiple dads and generally have greater income and personal circumstances, which we all know is a decent predictor of child outcomes if they do adopt.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 9:03 pm
1) You missed the point I was making.
Vote:2) Constructive debate involves not attacking your opponent. What some people do in the name of Jesus is one thing, but within the context of history the ideology Jesus espoused was essentially liberal.
May 19th, 2012 at 9:07 pm
You are selective in your comments – there were many and numerous reasons to getting married I related to but you picked on one to try and make a point, badly. They were all practical and imposed upon us.
It doesn’t friggin matter!!
Bloody hell, you were the one telling us you got married due to the inconvenience of not being married, all I am doing is pointing out your obvious lack of respect for the institution, you just admitted as much!
Your opinion about handing the institution over to the gay community to redefine at will is therefore entirely predictable.
I am not saying it was right for people to pressure you into marriage, but guess what? people in that situation now have these lovely civil unions to use instead.
This issue is simply a beat up on traditional marriage, you don’t like it, fine, do you think I can keep it because I like it? would that be ok?
Like hell they all say.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 9:11 pm
Question is, are these freaks so insecure that a Civil Union isn’t good enough for them ?
Why not ? (love to hear that argument)
They can’t accept, ‘ different but equal.’
They are so insecure they have to be, ‘Same.’
That is because deep down, they know it is wrong. But for them not to feel guilt, they must feel that their behaviour is both accepted by everyone else and is literally equal to everyone else (even though it is not).
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 9:15 pm
That is because deep down, they know it is wrong
And you know this from talking to your gay friends do you?
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 9:26 pm
Like moths to a flame, the Christians come out to stamp on the rights of their fellow human beings.
Words like “unnatural” and “freak” in relation to gay people on this thread is quite disconcerting. So much for christian love and acceptance. Christianity as a religion is one hell of a depraved and sordid cult – while their followers preach love they practise hate, while their leaders preach forgiveness they are buggering young boys. Their feeble grip on the sanctity of marriage is loosening thanks to quickie weddings, sham marriages, celebrity stunts and marriages of convenience, so instead they are shutting out those who would most likely bring dignity to the word and meaning of marriage, just because a fictional book that still ignores dinosaurs is translated to say gay marriage is wrong.
Oh deary me! Just as slavery was ended, despite you people having that mentioned throughout both testaments, in favour of mind you, so will gay marriage be accepted by the populace. You’ll all still remain a vocal and bigoted minority. Good luck with that!
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 9:29 pm
Scott
The writer (Lucia, of course, who else?) you quoted mentioned Christians, not Jesus.
If Jesus existed, he was a Jew.
And I don’t consider Christianity to have had a positive effect, overall, on the state of humankind, quite the reverse.
That was my point.
And if you want genteel debate, what the fuck are you doing here? (just joking…)
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 9:30 pm
So you would ban an 80 year old man and woman from marrying because they can’t procreate? Or maybe a woman who’s had a hysterectomy would not be allowed to marry, and a man whose sperm count is too low to father kids?
Watch this video for the explanation –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMYBl2uzXEw&feature=related
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 9:36 pm
Fletch
The only definition needed for marriage is that two, or more, people wish to spend their lives living together, and the resulting commitment and obligations are recognised by the state.
End of story,
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 9:43 pm
Interesting. What happens in the state of Iran?
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 9:59 pm
And then, along comes:-
chiz
giving the last word on Natural Law, and the other areas where he/she no doubt has a PhD.
Let’s have your evidence.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 10:03 pm
re: homosexuality in Islamic environments –
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 10:06 pm
Johnboy, vous avez perdu quelques points à cause de votre remarque concernant “la maladie française” – n’est pas très joli!
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 10:14 pm
Fletch
We live in a secular country. Let’s leave out the red herrings. When in Rome…
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 10:21 pm
Don the Kiwi:Let’s have your evidence.
Evidence for what? That its biological in origin or that it occurs in nature? There are numerous papers out there on twin studies, fingerlength ratios, or the stuff on otoacoustic emissions which I’ve posted before, anatomical differences in brain structures etc.
Furthermore homosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality occur in sheep, and gay sheep have similar differences in their hypothalamus to those spotted in gay men.
On the other hand, evidence for your position that it is contrary to Natural Law is what?
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 10:27 pm
Furthermore homosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality occur in sheep, and gay sheep have similar differences in their hypothalamus to those spotted in gay men.
Sorry, but that seems so much hogwash to me. I grew up on a farm, and yes sometimes cows “ride” each other when they are in season, but that does not make them homosexual. Neither with sheep.
From what I can see, Nature is solely heterosexual. If it weren’t then species wouldn’t survive.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 10:37 pm
From what I can see, Nature is solely heterosexual. If it weren’t then species wouldn’t survive.
Like homo sapiens didn’t, for example?
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 10:39 pm
Fletch
….”Sorry, but that seems so much hogwash to me. I grew up on a farm, and yes sometimes cows “ride” each other when they are in season, but that does not make them homosexual. Neither with sheep.”…..
I’ve just sent off a paddock full of ram lambs who humped each other all summer. In case this phenomenon reoccurs next year do you know of any texts or chants that ward off such deviant behaviour?
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 10:42 pm
Like homo sapiens didn’t, for example?
Well, most of us are heterosexual too; in fact, we are all are.
Vote:In reality, homosexuality is nothing more than same-gender conduct among people who are innately and unchangeably heterosexual.
May 19th, 2012 at 10:43 pm
Yes, Fletch, there are lots of anecdotal reports of behaviour in ainmals that sounds like homosexuality but that isn’t what I’m talking about. There have been studies of sheep, under controlled circumstances, that establish that they aren’t all straight.
If it weren’t then species wouldn’t survive.
This is just so naive. The survival of a species does not require that ALL members of that species must procreate. It is well established in biology that traits that reduce the fertility of some individuals can in fact become common. Indeed its even possible for traits that are fatal to become common.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 10:43 pm
nasska, yes, they’re on heat.
Vote:Get them some sheep
May 19th, 2012 at 10:51 pm
Oh deary me! Just as slavery was ended, despite you people having that mentioned throughout both testaments, in favour of mind you, so will gay marriage be accepted by the populace. You’ll all still remain a vocal and bigoted minority. Good luck with that!
Sorry, I must be having some trouble with my history, because as far as I understand it the events that led to the end of slavery in the British empire and the United States was in no small part due to Christian activism and Christian politicians.
As was the reformation central to ending serfdom in Europe.
It’s funny how people distort reality because a few religious people “today” don’t behave themselves.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 10:56 pm
Shunda
Take it easy, mate.
Serfdom is making a comeback.
Aided and abetted by Christian institutions.
Plus, I think you will find Christians are always dragged kicking and screaming into any and every enlightenment project of the day.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 10:58 pm
And I don’t consider Christianity to have had a positive effect, overall, on the state of humankind, quite the reverse.
Then you are completely blinkered and ignorant of history.
People like Luc will say things like this while ignoring the fact the political atheist ideology killed more people in one century than all religions killed in all of known history.
And that is an absolute irrefutable fact of history and reality.
But watch them wriggle out of it none the less.
Get mad at the poor behavior of individual Christians (or even denominations) by all means, but do try to see the big picture instead of projecting your bias down throughout the ages and to the limits of the known universe.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 11:01 pm
Actually (as I have posted numerous times) you can’t talk about the slavery in America and Africa, and the slavery in the Bible as being the same thing. They are not at all. In the ANE, people used to sell themselves into slavery to pay off a debt, or parents used to sell their children into slavery – this was the most common. And it was not the slavery with chains and being locked up; it was more akin to being a servant and living in the same house as the master.
See http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html if you want to know more.
Vote:And also http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslavent.html
May 19th, 2012 at 11:03 pm
Luc, people are absolutely barbaric by default, Christianity had a major influence on restraining that barbarism despite how poorly people often followed the teachings of Christ.
Yes it was corrupted by political power, yes individuals exploited it for what they could, but like democracy even though it often functions imperfectly it has still had a stabilizing influence.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 11:07 pm
Slavery in the times of the bible was often (not always) equivalent to the working classes of today, the world worked differently back then and we shouldn’t fall to the error of judging history by the standards of today.
If we removed employment law watch how quickly people would return to effective slavery.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 11:07 pm
Shunda
There is no such thing as an “atheist ideology.”
Atheism is simply an absence of belief in a supernatural god. I suppose at the extremes there is an atheism that denies the possibility of a supernatural being, but that is an unprovable stance.
Atheists who were mass murderers did not commit mass murder in the name of atheism, but the history of the last 2000 years is replete in mass murderers who invoked the Christian God to justify their deeds.
On balance, I give Christianity and Islam a fail. Judaism I have more time for, but maybe that’s just because they never got the numbers to develop murderous intentions, until the twentieth century, that is.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 11:09 pm
More –
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 11:18 pm
Luc, I said political atheist ideology.
And for the record, I can link the deaths of hundreds of millions of people in the 20th century to atheism and social Darwinism far more easily than you can link deaths due to religion on the teachings of Christ.
Read what Jesus says and try and tell me that justifies the Crusades, (which were political and economic in origin anyway) you can’t.
But I can read all about Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler and draw some pretty scary conclusions on the particular world view they had and the resultant justification of tyranny that it enabled.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 11:26 pm
Shunda:I said political atheist ideology.
The key word here is ideology. That has nothing to do with them being atheist. They may have a particular hair or eye colour too.
Meanwhile somewhere between 20 and 50 million people died during the Taiping Rebellion all because Hong Xiuquan had visions which revealed to him that he was the son of god, Jesus younger brother, and that god wanted him to save China.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 11:28 pm
How can politicians or anyone else be “in favour” of an impossibility?
There is no such thing as same sex marriage.
Marriage can only be between people of the opposite sex.
Vote:May 19th, 2012 at 11:30 pm
Shunda
You will have to explain to me how an ideology can be apolitical. I look forward to that.
Meanwhile, it appears we are engaged in a battle the lesser evil. Is that the best humanity has to offer?
By the way, Hitler was Christian and Pol Pot was Buddhist.
Vote:May 20th, 2012 at 12:21 am
By the way, Hitler was Christian and Pol Pot was Buddhist.
Even if true, (and in the case of Hitler it isn’t) lets just assume for arguments sake Hitler claimed to be a Christian. Now people claim all sorts of things, but usually one uses evidence to determine whether those claims are true.
So Luc, I would like you to tell me whether you think Hitler was pursuing his Third Reich due to the teachings of Christ or due to political ideology and social Darwinism.
I look forward to that.
Vote:May 20th, 2012 at 12:37 am
The key word here is ideology. That has nothing to do with them being atheist. They may have a particular hair or eye colour too.
I think that is utter bullshit.
Theses tyrants did what they did due to their position in History, the relationship at the time between religion and science, and the wide acceptance that social engineering on a truly massive scale was a-o-k because there was no God and survival of the fittest was the modus operandi.
Stalin’s atheism was an essential component to his world view, without it the whole thing wouldn’t have even got off the ground.
But all this aside, you and Luc have just unwittingly revealed a fatal flaw in your argument, if these atheist tyrant dictators atheism was of no more consequence to their actions than their eye colour, the same is true of any deaths people attribute to Christianity.
An atheistic world view does not forbid murder, tyranny, it indeed enables one to dream up all sorts of justifications ones actions.
But for the Christian? the Christ following Christian? well murder is forbidden, the poor must be cared for, you must do to others what you want to be done to you.
The best you can do is blame these religious atrocities on people that “claimed” to be Christian. Islam is another story however, because their prophet enables murder and brutality.
Vote:But even then, the Muslims didn’t kill as many people as Stalin.
May 20th, 2012 at 1:06 am
Muslims have actually killed very few, compared to Christians.
Whereas early Christians always went to war with genocidal intent (Crusades), Muslims tended to keep the locals alive and contributing to their rulers coffers. Very smart.
I disagree with your equivalence of intent as regards Stalin, but I suppose all is in the eye of the beholder.
And your claim that some Christians only claim to be Christians is risible. They believe that they are Christian, and that’s what counts.
Murder is forbidden to Christians? Tell that to every US President since Independence Day. Especially tell that to the current occupant of that office.
Vote:May 20th, 2012 at 1:09 am
What a crock. Total double standards and hypocrisy.
Luc H bitches and whines about Jews and Christians, and conveniently leaves out Muslim Theocracies. Apparently having a state that murders gays in the name of the God is acceptable.
Vote:May 20th, 2012 at 1:20 am
No TimG, what I said was that Muslim countries and their norms are irrelevant to our situation as a secular nation. And most Muslim nations are democracies, not theocracies. Do a head count yourself instead of asking me to do your research.
And I singled out Judaism as a minor, but seemingly peaceable religion – until the Zionist project began in the late 19th century.
I don’t condone any acts of murder, including that of Osama bin Laden and the almost daily slaughter of Palestinians at the hands of Israelis. I don’t give a fuck what their religion is, they are as European as me and they are carrying on our great, evil, empire project of days past.
Vote:May 20th, 2012 at 2:27 am
Anyone noticed that a thread around same sex marriage ends up a mired in a discussion around religion? Says it all really.
@Shunda
“political atheist ideology”
congratulations you appear to have invented a group that doesn’t have any organisation – they don’t get together every Sunday – they don’t have any sort of membership – have never attacked or gone to war based on their lack of belief – they are marked by their decision to not be part of other organised groups.
Says more about you I suggest.
and back to the original point – how does giving a specific minority the ability to marry somehow be a problem? Yet to hear an argument that isn’t based on one or more of:
- it’s unnatural
Vote:- it’s against god\religion
- marriage is for procreation
May 20th, 2012 at 6:03 am
It’s nearly annoying, yet to some extend amusing to watch the christian apologists here desperately trying to whitewash and airbrush their history. And then having the cheek to call others “completely blinkered and ignorant of history.”
First Fletch with his nonsense about slavery and how the bible does not endorse it. Laughable at best, more like dishonest and downright hideous at worst.
And then the tired, old, endlessly debunked Hitler, Stalin, Pol-Pot was an atheist and therefore killed millions. What utter detestable, ignorant and moronic rubbsih.
Hitler was a catholic and still is. He was never excommunicated. The majority of catholics down to the pope supported him. He referred to God extensively in Mein Kampf.
And never mind Hitler as he didn’t act alone, did he. What about all the thousands of of Christians how happily and dutifully rounded up jews, gays, gypsies and communists and escorted them into death camps and gas chambers.
What about the centuries of prosecution, demonisation and discrimination of Jews throughout Europe that actually paved the way to Hitlers ideology. He certainly didn’t come up with the hatred of the Jew by himself and it fell on fruitful ground. Fruitful christian ground.
Was he motivated by his christianity? Or course not. Nether was Stalin motivated my atheism. They were motivated by power and eliminated everyone that was against them or threatened their power. As did the catholic church for centuries.
Stalin, Hitler, pol Pot were totalitarian regimes and as such they established themselves as a “state religion”. A overpowering, overarching leader, the absurd personality cult, the official dogma and one truth that cannot be questioned ,demanding unconditional and absolute loyalty.
All that have the trademark of how religions operate. None of them had anything to do with atheism or how Shunda put it: political atheist ideology. What an oxymoron, a misnomer if I have ever seen one.
Sam Harris’s response to this is one of the best ones, in my opinion… that the Killing Fields, the Gulag and the Holocaust were not the result of societies that became too attached to critical thinking, or too demanding of evidence.
Quite the contrary.
Vote:May 20th, 2012 at 9:19 am
By 1933 there was an automatic excommunication for any Catholic who joined the Nazi party, wore the uniform or flew the swastika flag.
Documents attesting to this have recently been found: Archives Show Church Excommunicated Nazis
Vote:May 20th, 2012 at 9:28 am
Of course the Catholic Church was perfectly happy to deal with Hitler so long as the church could maintain its privileges.
Vote:May 20th, 2012 at 10:14 am
First Fletch with his nonsense about slavery and how the bible does not endorse it. Laughable at best, more like dishonest and downright hideous at worst.
eszett, you obviously have not read the articles at the links I gave. It is a lot of reading, but is very scholarly.
Vote:I think you’d rather stick to your cherry picked quotes and not bother to look into the subject.
May 20th, 2012 at 10:20 am
Of course the Catholic Church was perfectly happy to deal with Hitler so long as the church could maintain its privileges.
Oh what revisionist crap, everyone (well almost everyone) thought Hitler was wonderful until 1939, he was regarded highly among intellectuals all over the world.
Vote:May 20th, 2012 at 10:20 am
You forgot priests. Here is the opening chapter of the story of one of them who ended up in Dachau:
Vote:Chapter 1 of Priestblock 25487: A Memoir of Dachau
In the courtyard, Hardegen’s own car is waiting. The superintendent drives me to Trier personally. He is in an expansive mood and talks at me without letup for the entire trip—about the coming victory and ruling the world and how the Church will be destroyed. It is February 1941.
May 20th, 2012 at 10:21 am
Muslims have actually killed very few, compared to Christians.
Hmm, I doubt whether that is true, Luc. Muslims were slaughtering others way before the Crusades; in fact, the Crusades were an attempt (partly successful) to stem the tide.
I have started to read Jihad in the West: Muslim Conquests from the 7th to the 21st Centuries, by Paul Fregosi, which details Muslim invasion down through the centuries –
http://amzn.to/KP4lyW
Some people have this idea that Muslims lived peacefully until the time of the Crusades, but that just isn’t true.
Vote:May 20th, 2012 at 10:27 am
Anyone noticed that a thread around same sex marriage ends up a mired in a discussion around religion? Says it all really.
Actually, it does indeed.
This “debate” is about cultural nihilism, this is not driven by gay activists alone, it is driven by cultural reformers such as pissed off angry elitist atheists that couldn’t hold a marriage together if they tried and have no respect for such “archaic” institutions.
And like all atheist commentators to date, all they do is tear down and never build anything but divisive ideology and ignorant elitist intellectualism.
Vote:May 20th, 2012 at 10:32 am
And then the tired, old, endlessly debunked Hitler, Stalin, Pol-Pot was an atheist and therefore killed millions. What utter detestable, ignorant and moronic rubbsih.
The only thing detestable is in how you butcher the truth out of history and support people like Sam Harris that would have us right back there in a second.
The same Sam Harris that thinks in certain circumstances the sanctioned death of individuals should be an option depending on what they believe in.
The same Sam Harris that has been fiercely criticized by other non religious folk for his dangerous leading and intellectual arrogance.
Yes, you can see exactly how history repeats itself, and it is f@cking scary that people even on this thread can’t see it.
Vote:May 20th, 2012 at 10:59 am
“Luc, people are absolutely barbaric by default, Christianity had a major influence on restraining that barbarism ”
This is basically rubbish.
Vote:May 20th, 2012 at 11:09 am
Fletch
Vote:I think it is overstating the case to see Islam as one long jihad aimed at Christian Europe; just as wrong as it would be to ascribe Europe’s conquest of virtually the entire world between 1500 and 1900 as prompted by militant Christianity.
May 20th, 2012 at 11:25 am
mm, I don’t see it as against Christian Europe in particular. It’s aim was world domination, no matter what the other religion was.
Vote:May 20th, 2012 at 11:35 am
Let’s not forget that for hundreds of years Europe was a continent where Christians fought and persecuted other Christians, committing all manner of atrocities and codifying such barbarities as burning at the stake those who disagreed with you over scripture.
The notion that Christianity restrained barbarism is ignorant nonsense.
Vote:May 20th, 2012 at 11:54 am
wat, you’re wrong. If not for the Crusades (especially the first one), Islam would have dominated.
Here is some of the timeline and why it led up to the Crusades.-
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/the_truth_about_islamic_crusad.html
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/mayweb-only/52.0.html?start=1
Vote:May 20th, 2012 at 1:51 pm
The notion that Christianity restrained barbarism is ignorant nonsense.
No, it is called history.
You are talking about the political rulers of the day and the bastardization of Christianity.
It is a fatal error to judge history by the standards of today and as brutal as Europe was at times, it was still less barbaric than other parts of the world.
Part of the reason the Crusades happened was because the Christianization of Europe (and particularly the Vikings) had reduced conflict to a level where men trained in war began to cause problems basically due to boredom.
There was a social, political, and economic cause to the crusades, not Christian. There are even recorded writings of clergy at the time that said there was no Christian justification for the crusades – they were ignored.
No matter which way you spin it, the teachings of Christ do not enable barbarism, but political, social, and economic ideology always will and always has.
Vote:May 20th, 2012 at 11:41 pm
Wow, what nonsense from Lucia and Felch amongst others. Revisionist bullshit. The bible encourages violence and all sorts of dreadful sins. What might seem rather normal in the Catholic Church isn’t what is acceptable in the outside world. You’re as bad as the Islamic “butchers” that you rant about. Militant christians are still active in Africa and kill people in the US.
Vote:May 22nd, 2012 at 2:39 am
Fletch are you that stupid to tell us all there that animals are not homosexual – this is despite facts and research proving you wrong. Are you willing to put what’s left of your reputation on the line on this one?
If not, why not.
Vote: