Hone on same sex marriage

June 25th, 2012 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

An interesting interview on Radio Rhema with on the issue. I think the only broadcast interview he has done on the issue.

A couple of quotes:

My politics might be radical, morally I am very conservative. …

I value the marriage my father and my mother had. I value that marriage that I have with my wife. I don’t know necessarily that you just changes rules because somebody says change rules. …

One thing I am proud of in being in politics is I’ve never voted for something I didn’t personally believe in.

Quite a fascinating interview. Few MPs would self-describe themselves as “morally very conservative”, especially the leader of a radical nationalist left party.

Also an insight into Hone that he has never voted for something he doesn’t personally believe in. I think this helps us understand why he was never going to last in the Maori Party, or in fact in any party he did not lead. The reality of politics is that MPs often have to vote for something they are not always personally convinced of. If this wasn’t the case, then every single issue and vote would be a conscience vote, and no Government could ever actually lay out a policy platform. Even Keith Holyoake once said he only agreed with about 80% of what his Government did.

Politics involves compromises, and Hone’s inability to ever compromise will always make him less effective than he could be.

As for the actual issue of same sex marriage, Hone has said he is happy to talk to Mana about it but I note his statement about never voting for something he does not believe in. I wouldn’t want to bet money on him changing his position.

Tags: ,

122 Responses to “Hone on same sex marriage”

  1. J Mex (190 comments) says:

    This most interesting part is how Hone chastises other MP’s for not taking a clear position, while doing exactly the same thing himself.

    Hone on support of Gay marriage (other MP’s): Other MP’s are too scared to talk about this…If you aren’t comfortable with it, say you aren’t comfortable with it…If you’re a genuine supporter of it…and some people are… [digresses into oblivion]

    Hone on support of Gay marriage (Hone): It is a very vexing situation issue for me. It’s not one I’ve made my mind up on one way or the other”

    How about some honesty from “Honest Hone”… ‘Um, I’m sitting around trying to figure out which position will do me the least damage with my constituency’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Tristan (63 comments) says:

    The same sex marrage debate in the states has taken on an intresting tone with the pro group pointing out that inter-racial marriage was also illgeal once based on moral grounds.

    Would be intresting to see Hone’s view on bans between maori and non-maori marriage for moral reasons… Although given his previous comments on his own family having relathionships with pakeha we might find he is not being inconsitant here!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. tas (649 comments) says:

    I doubt Hone’s supporters agree with him 100% of the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Longknives (4,889 comments) says:

    Hone isn’t real smart….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Pete George (23,688 comments) says:

    Even Keith Holyoake once said he only agreed with about 80% of what his Government did.

    Interesting point. I often think of 80%. If you are in agreement with 80% of 80% of a party’s policies you should be doing pretty well.

    I think I’m around 80% agreement (give or take a bit) with United Future and National at the moment. And I may not be far off 80% with Act either.

    I wouldn’t be far off that with Labour either on policy, except that some of their recent major policy lurches I haven’t agreed. I’m at a lot lower % on agreeing with their methods at the moment though, they’re far too negative.

    I think a problem a lot of bloggees have – like Harawira – is they want 100% their way, which means they get closer to 100% frustration and 0% results.

    Another 80% I think of is an 80% positive approach to politics (unlike some parties in opposition). I think it’s nuts not to try and achieve positively most of the time, but you have to allow for being sucked into the hubris at imes, and especially allow for confronting and standing up to crap.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Pete George (23,688 comments) says:

    Except that I’m close to 100% convinced that marriage equality should happen, it seems like a basic human right, and doesn’t remove anyone else’s right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    Hone is a liar. While there were times when he left the chamber rather than be present when the Maori Party voted in support of something he didnt like, the Maori Party never – or almost never – registered split votes indicating one or more MP’s disagreed with “the party line”. ACT did it quite often.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Fletch (6,502 comments) says:

    The same sex marrage debate in the states has taken on an intresting tone with the pro group pointing out that inter-racial marriage was also illgeal once based on moral grounds.

    Except that I do not think you can frame gay marriage in the same way. It’s nothing to do with Civil Rights since homosexuality does not qualify as a class meriting special protections, like race and gender, which are based on physiognomy.

    There is no proof that homosexuality is intrinsic, or an “orientation”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Pete George (23,688 comments) says:

    homosexuality does not qualify as a class meriting special protections

    That’s not what’s being asked for. It’s simply an issue meriting equal rights, there’s nothing special about that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Fletch (6,502 comments) says:

    As I’ve said before on Kiwiblog, (and posted some of an article by Brendan O’Neil from Spiked! magazine), gay marriage is not being pushed from below by the public – it’s being pushed by the social and media elites from the top-down.

    The reason the gay-marriage issue can feel like it came from nowhere, and is now everywhere, is because it is an entirely top-down, elite-driven thing. The true driving force behind it is not any real or publicly manifested hunger amongst homosexual couples to get wed, far less a broader public appetite for the reform of the institution of marriage; rather it is the need of the political and media class for an issue through which to signify its values and advertise its superiority. Gay marriage is not a real issue – it is a cultural signifier, like wearing a pink ribbon to show you care about breast cancer.

    […]

    Collapsing together every human relationship, so that everything from gay love to a Christian couple who want to have five kids is homogenised under the term ‘marriage’, benefits no one. It doesn’t benefit gay couples, whose ‘marriage’ will have little historic depth or meaning, and it doesn’t benefit currently married couples, some of whom may feel a corrosion of their identity.

    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/12273

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    Why not equal rights for hunchbacks to get married Pete George?

    Marriage is about raising children, always has been. It is about bonding a man to a woman so as to ensure that there is a next generation.

    You people are unbelievably stupid but then again the elites also believe that cow farts are melting the North Pole and so are ready to believe anything I suppose

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. labours a joke (442 comments) says:

    “100% convinced that marriage equality should happen,”

    ..but only if theres a penis and a vagina involved PG…anything else is not acceptable for marriage…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Pete George (23,688 comments) says:

    Andrei: Marriage is about raising children, always has been.
    labours a joke: anything else is not acceptable for marriage…

    That’s your views, but many (probably most) people disagree.

    Many people get married and it’s not ‘about raising children”. I got married to make a commitment to my wife, both times. Having children or not never entered the consideration. In my first marriage I had three children, but that would have happened whether I got married or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Yvette (2,854 comments) says:

    Marriage is about raising children
    – so are may de facto relationships, while some married couples do not have children.

    Marriage is about exclusivity.
    And people who know that are probably more likely to also know it is bovine eructation rather than cattle flatulence that is melting the North Pole

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    I got married to make a commitment to my wife, both times.

    You probably fail to see the irony in that statement.

    And most people do not agree Pete George – in the West, well North Western Europe and a few States in the USA people have been bullied by the gay mafia into silence but when they have gone to the voting booth to cast a secret ballot it has always been to say NO!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Yvette (2,854 comments) says:

    A gay couple get married.
    So they become the same as a great number of others in society – married.
    And that is all they are, outwardly, unless they do something to distinguish that they are “gay married”
    At which point they are no longer just “married”, they are “married something else”

    Some contributor to General Debate not so long ago suggested gay people have up to 1000 partners – per what I was not sure, as per year would be being very busy people. But given that as a possible trait, it will be interesting to see what “gay divorce” figures become.

    The real downside to gay marriage will be the ability to adopt, which will become the next goal for “equality”, and that will involve the rights of children subjected constantly to role models they should be allowed to question – to do as they say, but be as they are?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Fletch (6,502 comments) says:

    A gay couple get married.
    So they become the same as a great number of others in society – married.
    And that is all they are, outwardly, unless they do something to distinguish that they are “gay married”

    They don’t have to do anything outwardly to distinguish being “gay married” – just being of the same gender is enough to distinguish between traditionally married couples.

    I don’t think people understand that marriage is not just a societal thing where two people decide to publicly commit their lives together and sign an official document. Marriage also has a spiritual side; it is a sacrament. The man and the woman become literally “one flesh” – united in a special way with each other and with God. Gay Marriage may attempt to replicate that, but it is only a pale imitation. It’s a decaffeinated marriage, that may look similar from the outside (and not even that really, as they are of the same gender) but is actually just an empty shell of the true institution.

    The gay couple cannot have sexual intercourse (coitus), and cannot bear children. It is a fruitless, barren union. Empty of the gift of life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Pete George (23,688 comments) says:

    Andrei – I didn’t fail to predict that sort of response, and I think you fail to understand that many people can (and do) make more than one commitment in their lifetime.

    I’m talking about New Zealand as far as majority agreement goes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Pete George (23,688 comments) says:

    The gay couple cannot have sexual intercourse (coitus), and cannot bear children. It is a fruitless, barren union. Empty of the gift of life.

    It’s not just gay couples that can’t have “coitus” the way the pope stipulates, and it’s not just the pope who chooses a relationship they know will be barren.

    And I’d bet that a huge majority in New Zealand would disagree that the ability (and desire) to have children is essential for a marriage.

    I wonder if old school Christians would allow people to prove if they can have children or not before they get married. It’s a bit late to find out you’re “barren” once hitched.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Yvette (2,854 comments) says:

    Fletch – Marriage also has a spiritual side; it is a sacrament. The man and the woman become literally “one flesh” – united in a special way with each other and with God.

    So gay marriage may initially be the same as those people who choose a registry office marriage, because they choose to exclude God.
    But some churches now have ordained gay clergy – do you think they will not conduct gay marriage in a church? – the right of gay believers?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    In the same way that anti-miscegenists abused statute law to redefine marriage along racist lines (micegenation never being contrary to the common law) we seem poised to repeat their error by drastically altering the institution to be in line with the contemporary fashion.

    Oh how I look forward to the day when we won’t daily be pestered by the clambering to drastically change the meaning of marriage at the behest of a tiny minority and the well-fed right – it will almost make losing the battle feel worth it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. J Mex (190 comments) says:

    I wonder if old school Christians would allow people to prove if they can have children or not before they get married. It’s a bit late to find out you’re “barren” once hitched.

    Old school Christians would/will tell you that it’s not up to science to determine if people can have children – That’s up to God.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Fletch (6,502 comments) says:

    I wonder if old school Christians would allow people to prove if they can have children or not before they get married. It’s a bit late to find out you’re “barren” once hitched.

    Actually, I know of marriages where the Church allowed for marriages to be anulled because the woman didn’t want kids or wasn’t able to have kids and the husband did not know of this before they were married. This was considered grounds for anullment

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Pete George (23,688 comments) says:

    I witnessed something in real life for the first time (I’ve seen it plenty of times on TV) – I was at a family function on Saturday night where someone did a traditional type marriage proposal. The dude asked the father-in-law-to-be for permission, and once granted he knelt and asked for my cousin to get engaged. She accepted, they both looked very happy and there was congratulations all round.

    At no time on the occasion were childen mentioned. Getting engaged to be married was about two people committing to a long term relationship. That’s all.

    It wasn’t that long ago that marriage was more of an ownership contract, where a man took total contol of a woman’s life. Children just happened to be a result sometimes of the man’s “right” to have sex whenever he chose. At least that practice has disappeared in our country, legally at least.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    And I’d bet that a huge majority in New Zealand

    No Pete George only the effete upper middle class in their drawing rooms think that.

    You are so clueless.

    Supporting unnatural marriage is a fad, its a marker to show that you are supposedly sophisticated unlike the rubes who are actually a lot wiser than the elites

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

    Who actually really cares who gets married or not? It’s not something heteros have done all that well with considering our divorce and de facto stats.
    Unless you belong to a church that wants to scrutinise people’s sexual habits and child-bearing intentions, along with their beliefs, then surely anyone should be entitled to the status and benefits of being married – such as they are.
    It always amuses me that so many people want to stand in the way of others. Why?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Fletch (6,502 comments) says:

    Pete, very nice. But that is why marriage preparation courses are so useful. The have weekend courses like that in the Church, where the couple is asked all the hard questions about marriage. Given a reality shot as it were. It’s very useful to work through and see if they are really suited and the points on which they will agree or disagree once they get married.
    It’s useful to do all this before getting hitched.

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

    unnatural marrriage?
    That is a really creepy attitude, Andrei.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Pete George (23,688 comments) says:

    Actually, I know of marriages where the Church allowed a couple to divorce because the woman didn’t want kids or wasn’t able to have kids and the husband did not know of this before they were married. This was considered grounds for divorce.

    And the woman wouldn’t have known if she could have children or not either.

    Marriage also has a spiritual side; it is a sacrament. The man and the woman become literally “one flesh” – united in a special way with each other and with God.

    United in a special way unless the man doesn’t get his own way? So much for a commitment. I’m a damn sight more committed than that to my wife, who I know became unable to have children after we got married.

    Some forms of marriage used to give legality to partriarchal control freaks. Some of home call themselves Christians who get caught with their own contradictions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    Fletch (2,961) Says:
    June 25th, 2012 at 12:37 pm

    The same sex marrage debate in the states has taken on an intresting tone with the pro group pointing out that inter-racial marriage was also illgeal once based on moral grounds.

    Except that I do not think you can frame gay marriage in the same way. It’s nothing to do with Civil Rights since homosexuality does not qualify as a class meriting special protections, like race and gender, which are based on physiognomy.

    There is no proof that homosexuality is intrinsic, or an “orientation”.

    That you refuse to acknowledge the evidence does not mean it is non-existent. But regardless, religion is a choice so according to your logic it has nothing to do with civil rights. So lets ban them from getting married and having children. :)

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

    Fletch – that weekend course sounds grisly. Does some celibate priest run it? I am just glad it’s not compulsory.
    I have been happily married a fair few decades now without the benefit of any ‘course’. Nor do I believe marriage is sacred or a sacrament. For us it was no more than a public statement of our intention to live together.And we had no plans for children though that changed after a few years.
    How on earth does anyone know what they are going to agree or disagree on once they get married?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    Andrei (1,278) Says:
    June 25th, 2012 at 12:46 pm

    Why not equal rights for hunchbacks to get married Pete George?

    Hating on the hunchbacks now? Fuck, is there anyone you DO like?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    Fletch,


    The gay couple cannot have sexual intercourse (coitus)

    Thank you for explaining that sexual intercourse means coitus. Would’ve been ambiguous otherwise. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    It wasn’t that long ago that marriage was more of an ownership contract, where a man took total contol of a woman’s life. Children just happened to be a result sometimes of the man’s “right” to have sex whenever he chose. At least that practice has disappeared in our country, legally at least.

    I see you have swallowed left wing feminist propaganda hook line and sinker.

    Have you ever had an original thought in your life or are you just repeater of empty slogans you have picked up?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Pete George (23,688 comments) says:

    coitus
    “copulation,” 1713, scientific L., from coition (1610s) “sexual intercourse” (also in coitu), originally “coming together” (1540s), from L.L. coitionem (nom. coitio), from pp. stem of L. coire, from co- “together” + ire “come, go,” from PIE base *ei- “to go.” Used in Eng. in general senses of “meeting,

    copulation
    c.1400, “coupling,” from Fr. copulation (14c.), from L. copulationem, noun of action from copulare (see copulate). Especially of the sex act from 16c.

    Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Ryan Sproull (7,288 comments) says:

    Marriage is between one man and one woman of the same race, and any legislation saying otherwise is a fiction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Pete George (23,688 comments) says:

    Andrei – a switch to attempted discrediting once it gets into touchy areas?

    In the ancient Israelite societies, marriage was the norm. There appear to have been few people who remained unmarried. A man selected a wife (or had one selected for him) from within his own tribe, usually at around the age of 13. The woman was then betrothed to him and in the eyes of society would be legally married. Upon consummation he would pay the bride-price to her family which compensated them for the loss of her labour.

    The husband ruled over the wife and his will was binding on the whole family. She was essentially considered to be his property, and there was not necessarily any requirement for consent from the woman for this arrangement.

    http://signposts02.wordpress.com/2011/10/08/a-short-history-of-christian-marriage/

    Are you suggesting nothing like this was ever a part of marriage?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. RRM (10,034 comments) says:

    Hone Harawira – an unexpected darling of the conservatives!

    Strange days…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. grumpy (270 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull

    ” Marriage is between one man and one woman of the same race”

    I think you mean “species”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Pete George (23,688 comments) says:

    ” Marriage is between one man and one woman of the same race”

    There’s been a fair bit of intolerance to inter-religion and even inter-faith marriage. I’ve experienced a bit of that myself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Mr_Blobby (192 comments) says:

    Has Honke (john Hadfield) Hokewera ever published his voting history, thought not. He probably thinks that because someone else cast his vote for him it does not count.
    He is happy to talk to Mana about it. So he is going to have a discussion with himself about it.
    Does anybody really take this fool seriously.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Mr_Blobby (192 comments) says:

    John JOHN, pass the peanut butter.

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

    i am finding it quite disconcerting that the person i voted for..

    ..is a reactionary on both this..and cannabis..

    ..i hope he bows to the will of the people he represents…

    ..who are in the main holding the opposite point of view on both those..

    phillip ure whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    I got married to make a commitment to my wife, both times.

    Awesome unintended hilarity of the day…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Pete George (23,688 comments) says:

    Psycho – it was deliberate. Hook.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. John Ansell (874 comments) says:

    If two men or two women love each other as intensely as a man and a woman can, why not give their relationship the same status, the same name?

    Let’s not quibble. Let them marry.

    Let the state be blind to colour, gender, sexual preference, the lot.

    Hone seems to believe in favouritism in all things.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Pete George (23,688 comments) says:

    I can’t seem to agree with Hone on anything.

    He doesn’t want you to date his daughter?

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

    Weihana, taking a break from advocating the killing of babies, opines:

    “That you refuse to acknowledge the evidence does not mean it is non-existent.”

    In this case it does. There is no serious evidence, and certainly not a shred of proof, that homosexual compulsions are an intrinsic orientation.

    Merely repeating Liberal propaganda is not evidence.

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

    John Ansell said:

    “”Let the state be blind to colour, gender, sexual preference, the lot.”

    Why?

    Pete said:

    “That’s not what’s being asked for. It’s simply an issue meriting equal rights, there’s nothing special about that.”

    First, on previous threads you have claimed that there is no such thing as rights. What changed?

    The notion of “equality” is a belief. You are free to believe in this myth if you choose. But simply sticking the word “equality” in front of something does not make it right, nor does it mean the state should operate under this fiction.

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

    “..The gay couple cannot have sexual intercourse (coitus), and cannot bear children. It is a fruitless, barren union. Empty of the gift of life…”

    idiot thinks that the quality of a human life hinges on method of coitus..and breeding…

    ..what a fucken moron..

    ..if he wasn’t such a vile bigot/preacher of christian-hatred…it’d be funny..!

    phillip ure whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. chiz (1,164 comments) says:

    Lee01:There is no serious evidence, and certainly not a shred of proof, that homosexual compulsions are an intrinsic orientation.

    There is serious evidence – finger length ratios in lesbians, or the work on otoacoustic emissions that I’ve mentioned before, not to mention structural differences in brains, or the work on gay sheep.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Scott (1,821 comments) says:

    I’m not sure we realise what a major change this will be. Instead of one man and one woman getting married and having kids it will be a free for all. I think it is good for a man and a woman to get married and then have children. It is what we all used to believe in and aspire to.

    If we have men marrying each other and women marrying each other,we are saying this is just as good. Little Johnny can aspire to grow up and marry Sally or he can aspire to grow up and marry Trevor. It is all just as good.

    Like-that is a huge change. It is redefining marriage and family in a fundamental way. Perhaps we will end up like ancient Greece where men married women and had sex with them enough to produce a family. But their love was for boys who they practised sodomy with. And when I say boys,I mean boys.

    This is like a fundamental change to our civilization and our notions of family. It is not just a matter of a small extension of human rights. It is a radical change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. RRM (10,034 comments) says:

    I’m not sure we realise what a major change this will be. Instead of one man and one woman getting married and having kids it will be a free for all

    This is like a fundamental change to our civilization and our notions of family. It is not just a matter of a small extension of human rights. It is a radical change.

    LOL – yes because lots of hitherto straight people will suddenly choose homosexuality now that gay marriage is here, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Pete George (23,688 comments) says:

    It is what we all used to believe in and aspire to.

    I haven’t seen any evidence of this.

    Like-that is a huge change. It is redefining marriage and family in a fundamental way.

    No, it’s a minor change that would formalise in law what happens in practice.

    If all Catholics dutifully followed the ‘advise” of the popes what would the world population be? Catholic families would probably average ten or more surviving children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Pete George (23,688 comments) says:

    LOL – yes because lots of hitherto straight people will suddenly choose homosexuality now that gay marriage is here, right?

    And suddenly Christians willl start using contraception and having abortions. And husbands will get drunk and beat their wives.

    How else will things change?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Rufus (677 comments) says:

    This whole “equality” bullshit really annoys me.

    Marriage has always been an exclusive club.

    Pete, interested why you object to homo “marriage”? That “not quite 100%” bit.

    If you let homos “marry”, why discriminated on age? Why can’t 12 year-olds have some “marriage equality” too?

    BeaB is onto it: “surely anyone should be entitled to the status and benefits of being married – such as they are.”

    Polygamy, polyandry, incest, the whole hog.

    If not, why not?

    Allowing gay “marriage” will mean all marriages will become “gay marriage”.

    Discuss.

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

    “There is serious evidence – finger length ratios in lesbians, or the work on otoacoustic emissions that I’ve mentioned before, not to mention structural differences in brains, or the work on gay sheep.”

    None of that is remotely serious evidence. Its ideologicaly driven speculation at best.

    But Rufus is right. Simple question. WHO SAYS PEOPLE MUST BE EQUAL? WHO SAYS EQUALITY IS A GOOD THING?

    When a Liberal can give a good, well reasoned answer to those questions……

    “Equality” is a meaningless slogan mindlessly repeated by Liberal cultists like a mantra.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. wat dabney (3,814 comments) says:

    Lee01,

    The issue is equality in the sense of equality before the law. Something that Hayek famously advocated, for example.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Mark (1,493 comments) says:

    Mr blobby there is very little I agree with Hone Harawera about. But sorry to
    Disallusion you he has never been known as or
    Called John Hadfield from his first day at primary school. It a myth perpetuated by those struggling to have an original thought but who like to repeat something someone else said somewhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    The issue is equality in the sense of equality before the law

    There is equality before the law everybody who desires to marry has a large pool of people from whom they can choose, there is another pool of people who they cannot marry – eg those under age.

    Same for everybody.

    Me I can’t marry anybody because I’m married already – my rights are not violated by this restriction

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    If you let homos “marry”, why discriminated on age? Why can’t 12 year-olds have some “marriage equality” too?

    BeaB is onto it: “surely anyone should be entitled to the status and benefits of being married – such as they are.”

    Polygamy, polyandry, incest, the whole hog.

    If not, why not?

    Does consenting adults ring a bell?

    It continues to amaze me how hard it is for you guys to grasp such a simple concept.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    There is equality before the law everybody who desires to marry has a large pool of people from whom they can choose, there is another pool of people who they cannot marry – eg those of a different race

    Same for everybody.

    Me I can’t marry anybody because I’m married already – my rights are not violated by this restriction`

    Change a small bit and it quickly shows how absurd your position becomes.

    And again, you fail to grasp the concept of consenting adults

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Rufus (677 comments) says:

    eszett – define “adult”

    Also, please explain why it’s ok to discriminate on the basis of age.

    So you’re not opposed to polyandry/polygamy/incest and whatever permutation people can come up with?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    And again, you fail to grasp the concept of consenting adults REPRODUCTION.

    Didn’t your mummy and daddy tell you about the “birds and the bees”? Clearly not

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Northland Wahine (667 comments) says:

    Andrei… So by your logic, the only reason to have sex is to reproduce? So couples who can not have children should never again have sex. Ever? Seriously?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    We are talking about MARRIAGE not “having sex”.

    I fpeople want to “have sex” in whatever fashion rocks their boats no matter how bizarre it is no concern of anybody else but themselves.

    But marriage is about conceiving and raising children – and trying to change this to appease a noisy bunch of sexual deviants who still wont be happy when they get it but will find some new thing to whine about and claim if they are not given their rights are violated is the height of stupidity

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    Also, please explain why it’s ok to discriminate on the basis of age.

    Is that really that hard to understand? The same reason we descriminate on age with regards to driving cars, drinking alcohol, voting, etc.

    And yes, the definition of adult has changed throughout history and is somewhat arbitrary.

    So you’re not opposed to polyandry/polygamy/incest

    It’s not the issue here at hand, and this has come up before and has been answered before, the answer is no.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Northland Wahine (667 comments) says:

    Andrei… Your 7.54 post clearly states reproduction. In capital letters no doubt. Birds and the bees? Is that all marriage is about? Reproducing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    But marriage is about conceiving and raising children

    No it’s not. It’s about commitment and love and supporting each other.

    You may see your marriage as a purely breeding contract with your wife if you wish to do so.

    But to devalue everyone else’s marriage, especially all those couples that cannot have children, to that level just to suit you silly prejudice is insulting nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. big bruv (14,166 comments) says:

    Andrei

    How do you feel about a heterosexual couple who choose not to have kids?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    Northland Wahine;
                    I have all sorts of relationships in my life, the guys I used to go hunting with, for example, the people who i go to Church with, for another, and none of thee relationships are of concern to anybody but myself and those people (and don’t go putting anything sexual into this, you people of tiny minds are obsessed with sex and sexuality which just goes to show how banal and trivial your thought processes truly are).

    The one relationship that matters to society at large is the one with my wife because it says that I am, well was now, responsible for the welfare and upbringing of any children she bore and that is why we as a society confer recognition of marriage.

    If were just a matter of sex it wouldn’t matter, just like it doesn’t matter who you shoot pool with

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Northland Wahine (667 comments) says:

    Touchy touchy Andrei… And you’re right, the relationships you have with friends, church, your wife, those are your business.

    Just as a gay couple whom wish to be married… Well that’s their business. You’re the one that is suggesting that marriage is about reproduction. Personally, I believe it means more. Go figure!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. big bruv (14,166 comments) says:

    Due to the blatant bigotry shown by the sky fairy followers I can say that the pro Gay Marriage lobby have gained another supporter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Chuck Bird (4,929 comments) says:

    “Marriage is between one man and one woman of the same race, and any legislation saying otherwise is a fiction.”

    Ryan, show us where those who oppose the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle are the same one who oppose interracial marriage.

    From what I have seen the aggressive libertarians are the same ones who come out with the racist generalisations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    I believe it means more too, Northland Wahine, but to get that more you do not need the STATE to give you a piece of paper.

    It is there or it isn’t, the State has no part to play in that. That piece of paper does nothing, nothing at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. wat dabney (3,814 comments) says:

    show us where those who oppose the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle are the same one who oppose interracial marriage.

    No, the principle is the same Chuck, the principle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Northland Wahine (667 comments) says:

    Andrei, I believe many hetro couples would disagree with you. That piece of paper means a lot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. nasska (11,827 comments) says:

    How would it go if the state simply registered that a union had been made between two people be they whatever combination of male, female or indeterminate? The sole purpose of this would be to keep a legal record.

    Then the marriage/union/whatever is celebrated and/or the two get joined in front of God or the letterbox accordingly to whatever grills their cheese.

    Sorted…..donations to the Atheists Soc can be made at any time & will be appreciated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    Nasska. So sensible. Good idea.
    And it makes me wonder about how sex determination for purpose of marriage has occurred to date. Was there someone checking me out to see if i was female enough to match my birth cert when I applied for the license.
    Ewww. That explains the tickly feeling.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. nasska (11,827 comments) says:

    Monique

    It’s natural to get that “ticky” feeling anytime one gets within six feet of a public servant. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (2,307) Says:
    June 25th, 2012 at 8:48 pm

    “Marriage is between one man and one woman of the same race, and any legislation saying otherwise is a fiction.”

    Ryan, show us where those who oppose the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle are the same one who oppose interracial marriage.

    The same kind of arguments from the same kind of people with the same kind of mindset, Chucky.
    If you would have the slightest bit of intellectual honesty, you would easily see that

    http://www.equalitygiving.org/files/Marriage-Equality-Same-Sex-Lesbian-Gay-Marriage/Arguments_Against_Interracial_Marriage_and_Equal_Marriage.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Leaping Jimmy (16,640 comments) says:

    But marriage is about conceiving and raising children

    Exactly.

    Marriage = Family. Inseparable as a concept in people’s minds.

    This is why civil union isn’t enough for gay activists. They can’t get that equation, that equating of the thing they most covet, for gays to be mixed into the family, as one, inseparable, in people’s minds, if its called “civil unions.”

    That’s why globally they’ve kept agitating for it.

    And just as good propagandists do, they’ve been busy shaking the right arm, hey, look here, look at this, see here it is, right here. But that’s because they don’t want you to think about the left arm. That is, they’ve been busy distracting you about how much of a tragedy it is they are discriminated against, specifically in order that you don’t, at any cost, give any thought time whatsoever, to what it mean to the current perception of the family unit, if gays and their lifestyles are inextricably equated with it.

    That’s all deliberate, but don’t expect the gays to ever admit they use tactics like that. Useful idiots fall for it all the time. Just don’t be a useful idiot.

    At the end of the day, gays are not discriminated against in any way, simply because their particular form of union has a different name. OK so they can’t get married. So what, big deal. They can have a civil union. Why is it discrimination that they can’t call their relationship, a marriage? If they have all legal rights, apart from the label, why is that discrimination? They can’t answer that question, and it never seems to occur to the useful idiots to ask it, for some reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Leaping Jimmy (16,640 comments) says:

    But if you give them the marriage label, then over a few generations, you degrade the family unit in society, by cheapening the concept of marriage, and making marriage not equal children, but merely equal cheap, degrading, sex. And that’s why they’ve got a global campaign on, right now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. mikenmild (11,798 comments) says:

    If it is no big deal, this difference between calling a relationship a ‘civil union’ or a ‘marriage’ and there is no discrimination against people due to one or the other, then surely the time has come for them to be called the same thing. Even better, just repeal the Marriage Act and let people call their relationships whatever they want, unencumbered by the need for a government piece of paper.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. mikenmild (11,798 comments) says:

    So according to LJ, a childless marriage is just ‘cheap, degrading sex’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    Andrei (1,284) Says:
    June 25th, 2012 at 9:06 pm

    I believe it means more too, Northland Wahine, but to get that more you do not need the STATE to give you a piece of paper.

    It is there or it isn’t, the State has no part to play in that. That piece of paper does nothing, nothing at all.

    So, you want to abolish marriage all together?

    That is, in essence, your argument. If the state has no part to play in it , than it should not recognise any of it either. Marriage would be a purely private undertaking with no effects, rights, obligations whatsoever.

    Now THAT is the true destruction of marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. John Ansell (874 comments) says:

    Attitudes change.

    We used to burn witches. Send kids up chimneys. Feed lions with Christians. Ban women from voting, or running marathons, or leading church services.

    Often in the name of God.

    Homosexuality was evil and illegal. Then it was legal, but unnatural. Then it was natural, but abnormal.

    Now it’s just another variant of humanity. We’ve grown up, and good on the Left for leading the change.

    The constant trend with our species is towards tolerance and equality of opportunity, breaking down man-made, God-‘endorsed’ barriers.

    Words change too.

    The word gay took on a new meaning. So can the word marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    Marriage = Family. Inseparable as a concept in people’s minds.

    This is why civil union isn’t enough for gay activists. They can’t get that equation, that equating of the thing they most covet, for gays to be mixed into the family, as one, inseparable, in people’s minds, if its called “civil unions.”

    Yes, in fact they very well understand that equation, that’s why they are fighting for it.

    If labels are not important why do you care about the label marriage so much?

    But if you give them the marriage label, then over a few generations, you degrade the family unit in society, by cheapening the concept of marriage,

    Again, more bigoted nonsense of similar vein as against interracial marriage.

    “Civilized society has the power of self-preservation, and, marriage being the foundation of such society, most of the states in which the Negro forms an element of any note have enacted laws inhibiting intermarriage between the white and black races.”
    (Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 40 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case))

    Interracial marriages would be a “calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us.”
    (Source: Tennessee Supreme Court, quoted in Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune, May 19,1996)

    No difference, same mindset, same nonsensical arguments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. kowtow (8,784 comments) says:

    there is not a constant trend to some sort a fucken utopia

    that thinking went out with the trenches of ww1 ,only to be reinforced by ww2 ,stalin and Mao etc

    westerner lefty liberals live in a socialist induced hypnotic state.

    Wake up, our polulations are falling,our politicians have opened the borders and a new wave of immigration will sweep the “new ” west away.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    Same old tiresome and intellectually vacuous appeals to “inter racial” marriage.

    Clearly you have the intelligence of a dead mouse.

    A few States had anti-miscegenation laws – since big words like “miscegenation” are probably well beyond your vocabulary level it means mixing of races through marriage and the way races get mixed is by one partner of each race conceiving a child and this was deemed undesirable by the drafters of such laws.

    No the chance of to homosexuals conceiving a child is zero!!!!!!

    Your vapid analogy means nothing other than you have stupidly, because you cannot think for yourself, absorbed activist talking points which you spew forth without understanding them

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Rufus (677 comments) says:

    Eszett – so you have no problem with a 12 year old marrying a 40 year old? If so, why?

    Marriage = family.

    If marriage is just love and commitment, you cannot logically argue for any exclusions/discrimination.

    So now Bob should be free to marry his sister. Auntie Jude can marry her nephew, and his boyfriend too.

    Can you not see how absurd that is?

    Also, if you drag marriage down to the level of “gay marriage”, you will have a sector of society who will get married in their church/mosque/whatever, and the state can go to hell with their bit of paper. Marriage registrations will go down.

    Call it “straight flight” if you will.

    As for the “only God-botherers are opposing this” meme, Nasska, Bruv and others… you’re wrong. There’s plenty of unbelievers who oppose it, albeit for similar reasons.

    This guy gets it

    “Underlying the gay-marriage debate is a relativistic reluctance to distinguish between different kinds of relationships.

    Gay love is fundamentally a relationship between two people.

    Traditional marriage is not. It is a union between a man and a woman which very often, through its creation and nurturing of a new generation, binds that man and woman to a great many others, to a community.

    It is an institution, not a partnership.

    Collapsing together every human relationship under a mushy and meaningless redefinition of “marriage” benefits no one.

    Except the political elites, who are so desperate to advertise their modernising zeal that they will ride roughshod over people’s identities if they think it will help them.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. John Ansell (874 comments) says:

    There is a constant trend towards tolerance, kowtow.

    But tolerating the intolerant is another matter. If you’re talking about militant Islam, I’m with you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Rufus (677 comments) says:

    Straight Flight

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Rufus (677 comments) says:

    John – funny – I see a trend towards intolerance.

    Intolerance of any opposing views, especially traditional Christian orthodoxy.

    And it’s only getting worse as society moves further and further away from their Christian foundation.

    Within my lifetime I expect to witness Christians being violently persecuted in the West as they have been under Communist and Muslim regimes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Yvette (2,854 comments) says:

    Today, politicians who aren’t very good at traditional politics have given up trying to transform society in favour of reshaping the relationships, lifestyles and attitudes of those who inhabit it. Their gay-marriage agitation is a central part of that.

    The usefulness of gay marriage as a tool for attitude re-modification can be seen in the way it is being used to redefine relationships and families in bureaucratic terms. So David Cameron’s consultation on gay marriage proposes erasing words like “husband” and “wife” in official documentation and replacing them with “partner” or “spouse”.

    This has already happened in Canada, where gay marriage became legal in 2005. There, the words husband and wife, even mother and father, have been airbrushed from official life, superseded by soulless terms like “Parent 1” and “Parent 2”.

    Such top-down rewriting of terminology is always about more than linguistic trickery. Rather it speaks to officialdom’s desire to overhaul meaning and reality itself. That such centuries-old identities as husband, wife, mother and father, which have profound meaning for millions, can be swiftly swept aside demonstrates the extent to which gay marriage is facilitating official interference into our lived experiences.

    This is social engineering, the renaming of relationships to suit the prejudices of our rulers. It also acts as an invitation to yet more state interference. The reduction of historic identities like husband or mother to bureaucratic categories like partner and parent presupposes that bureaucrats have the right to define our relationships, and by extension to govern them. – Brendan O’Neill
    http://brendanoneill.co.uk/post/20590301764/why-liberals-and-progressives-should-refuse-to-get-on
    – courtesy Rufus

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. kowtow (8,784 comments) says:

    yvette

    spanish socialists brought in the parent 1 and 2 thing also. One of their early “innovations”. Amazing that an English “conservative” is going down the same socialist road.
    Equality, it will destroy Europe yet.

    You acn get birth certificates reissued too.Following a sex change operation. So now we can also change an historical record and event. Orwellian.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    Rufus (413) Says:
    June 25th, 2012 at 10:04 pm

    Eszett – so you have no problem with a 12 year old marrying a 40 year old? If so, why?

    Just how thick are you, Rufus? Where did I say that a 12 year old was a consenting adult?

    So now Bob should be free to marry his sister. Auntie Jude can marry her nephew, and his boyfriend too.

    Can you not see how absurd that is?

    The absurdity is that you bring these things up as examples. With that you could equally argue against any kind of marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Rufus (677 comments) says:

    Eszett – how can you discriminate on age?

    Define “adult”.

    See, you’re making this marriage thing exclusive again.

    No different than what you’re accusing others of.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Rufus (677 comments) says:

    Eszett – “It’s about commitment and love and supporting each other.” Where does age come into it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Rufus (677 comments) says:

    Can the young not have love, commitment, and support, Eszett?

    Come on, treat me as the simpleton you think I am.

    Explain why you get to decide exclusions, but others cannot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Rufus (677 comments) says:

    Eszett – “With that you could equally argue against any kind of marriage.”

    Nope, with “it’s about commitment and love and supporting each other.” you can argue for any kind of marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    Intolerance of any opposing views, especially traditional Christian orthodoxy.

    Boo fucking hoo. Grow up!

    Opposing these views is not the same as intolerance.

    What I am intolerant about is forcing these views on everyone else without any sensible justification.

    And before you counter, no one forces Christians to accept or embrace gay marriage.
    Just like no one forces a racist to accept or embrace inter-racial marriage.

    Both are free to be against it as much as they like.

    This is a question whether as a society we should discriminate against a certain group of people based on some silly prejuidce and bad arguments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    Nope, with “it’s about commitment and love and supporting each other.” you can argue for any kind of marriage.

    Yes. And you problem with consenting adults doing that is exactly what?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. princetipytoe (47 comments) says:

    I placed this on Kiwiblog today, Garrett got nasty

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Former-Act-MP-appalled-by-partys-hypocrisy/tabid/367/articleID/176486/Default.aspx

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Rufus (677 comments) says:

    Define “Adult.”

    Why is your definition better than Mohammed’s?

    So then you have no problem with consenting adults getting into any kind of marriage – Bob, auntie Jude, her nephew, and his boyfriend can all “marry” each other?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    Rufus (417) Says:
    June 25th, 2012 at 11:10 pm

    Can the young not have love, commitment, and support, Eszett?

    Come on, treat me as the simpleton you think I am.

    Explain why you get to decide exclusions, but others cannot.

    So why can you decide exclusions then? It’s not one person making an exclusion, it’s an argument where to draw the line.
    I draw the line at consenting adults.

    Again, is the concept of adulthood and making adult decision so foreign to you that you need to argue down that line?

    Why are you so insistent that if you allow gay marriage you might as well allow a 12 year old to marry? That makes no sense what so ever. A 12 year old obviously is not adult enough to make a decision and commitment like that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Rufus (677 comments) says:

    Eszett – you’re “marriage” is a meaningless term. You might as well give it up and use “relationship” or “union”. :)

    You might then as well give up “husband” and “wife”, since they have significance only within a traditional man-woman-for-life marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    Rufus (418) Says:
    June 25th, 2012 at 11:21 pm

    Define “Adult.”

    Why is your definition better than Mohammed’s?

    You might as well ask, why is it better than the definition of the church in the 13th century who set it at 7?

    Tell me, do you think a 12 year old should be able to marry? And what has that got to do with the whole topic anyway

    So then you have no problem with consenting adults getting into any kind of marriage – Bob, auntie Jude, her nephew, and his boyfriend can all “marry” each other?

    Just how many of these case do you actually know about? Just because you pull a silly example out of your arse doesn’t make it a valid example. But ultimately, yes, if you would find somewhere some people who freely and sincerely want to do this, who are you to say that they shouldn’t?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Rufus (677 comments) says:

    Eszett – you haven’t met some 12 year olds.

    16 is purely arbitrary. Throughout history, people were married and had families at a far younger age than today.

    Glad you agree your exclusion based on age too is purely arbitrary.

    Consenting adults is a good start . But not enough.

    What’s preventing Bob, Mary, Joe, and Peter from marrying in your world?

    Or Sean marrying his 3 wives?

    Do you mind Tom marrying his sister? Neville his two cousins?

    You see, they all want to love, commit to, and support each other. They can therefore all “marry”. Right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Rufus (677 comments) says:

    Your “marriage” = “relationship”. Nothing more.

    Traditional, historical marriage is more than that.

    Marriage = one man, one woman, for life. It is an institution designed to protect the family unit, and the children that may result.

    There are other relationships, they can be wonderful, but they are not marriage. Never have been, never will be.

    This is social engineering.

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

    @Rufus
    “Traditional, historical marriage is more than that.
    Marriage = one man, one woman, for life.”

    No Rufus – The history of marriage throughout all the cultures of the world is much more complicated than that. Even in the Old Testament we find polygamists of various types (without incurring the wrath of God), and there is also –

    “When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificatoe of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Rufus (677 comments) says:

    Eszett – “I draw the line at consenting adults. “

    Historically, society has drawn the line at man+woman. Why is yours better?

    I mean “who are you to say that they shouldn’t”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    Your are mistaken, Rufus.
    You may accept that as your definition, for yourself, but there is no reason that society should accept that.

    We can agree on “marriage is an institution designed to protect the family unit, and the children that may result” (But that is not the traditional definition of marriage at all.)

    However two men or two women can be married and form a family, they already do, often and with success. Might as well call it what it is.

    “Traditional” marriage is a dangerous thing to call for, Rufus, as traditional marriage had nothing to do with “an institution designed to protect the family unit, and the children that may result.”

    And your examples of incests are nothing but red herrings. How many people do you know off who would actually like to do that. None.

    The fact is that you have no sensible argument against gay marriage, you just don’t like it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Rufus (677 comments) says:

    SGA – nice one. But you will agree that the Bible prescribes, as well as describes.

    Marriage is prescribed as one man, one woman, for life. All other possible arrangements eventually led to disaster.

    This is re-confirmed by Jesus, and has been the norm in Western civilization from Roman times onwards.

    Yes, there are different ways of doing it, but marriage, as a publicly accepted institution throughout the last 2000 years, at least, was still man+woman and hopefully = children.

    It was meant to be exclusive to protect it and its members.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Rufus (677 comments) says:

    Eszett – society has accepted that! That’s the whole point.

    You are the one agitating for change.

    FFS

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Rufus (677 comments) says:

    Eszett – you have no sensible arguments against incest, you just don’t like it.

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

    @Rufus – seems odd that God forgot to tell the Prophets and Patriachs of their mistake, but what the hell.

    “Traditional, historical marriages” then are only those that fit your particular Christian definition. Ok, I can’t argue with a mind that narrow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,571 comments) says:

    Whoever said marriage is only to conceive children (probably the Fletch or Andrei hate roadshow) are talking out of their asses. Married couples can choose to not have kids. My wife and I have chosen to not have kids. Why bring kids into the world when they could very likely be molested by a priest or even worse – share a planet with closed minded bigots that refuse the same rights to all of gods children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. chiz (1,164 comments) says:

    Lee01:None of that is remotely serious evidence. Its ideologically driven speculation at best.

    Nope, its real evidence. Your opposition to it however is clearly ideological

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

    “Nope, its real evidence.”

    Your support for it is clearly ideological. And no, its not evidence. Check my article in general debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. chiz (1,164 comments) says:

    OK, I’ve checked your article. It cherry picks studies and ignores wholesale data which they find inconvenient.

    The fact remains that there are statistically significant differences in finger length ratios in lesbians compared to heterosexuals ( and also between butch and non-butch lesbians). Evoked otoacoustic emissions, which are not under conscious or subconscious control, also show differences between lesbians and heterosexuals. These are empirical biological differences.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    I’m a firm advocate for gay marriage.

    They should be made to suffer like the rest of us do.

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