Same sex marriage numbers
June 1st, 2012 at 7:00 am by David FarrarThe Campaign for Marriage Equality has compiled MPs views on voting for a same sex marriage bill at its first reading. Overall they say there are 47 votes in favour, 18 against, 52 unknowns and 4 undecideds.
I’ve broken this down by party (and included undecideds in unknowns). The party states are:
- National – 7 for, 9 against, 43 unknown
- Labour – 24 for, 4 against, 6 unknown
- Greens – 14 for
- NZ First – 1 for, 3 against, 4 unknown
- Maori – 1 for, 2 unknown
- Mana – 1 against
- ACT – 1 unknown
- UFNZ - 1 against
The four Labour MPs against are Rajen Prasad, Ross Robertson, Phil Goff and Damien O’Connor. The seven Nats in favour are Nikki Kaye, Jami-Lee Ross, John Key, Colin King, Tau Henare, Amy Adams and Chester Borrows.
Related posts:
- MPs on same sex marriage
- Poll breakdown on same sex marriage
- Marriage Bill does not have the numbers
- PM says gay marriage doesn’t affect his marriage to Bronagh
June 1st, 2012 at 7:13 am
Is this really something that the government should be spending time on right now?
Perhaps when our economy is stronger, perhaps when we have done something about hammering the DPB slappers and dole bludgers, perhaps when we are in a far stronger financial position then Gay Marriage is something we can spend time working on.
Until then we have far bigger issues to be working on.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 7:21 am
And this is an issue that will do anything at all for anybody?…………………
What a waste of time and effort.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 7:37 am
I couldn’t care less either way but I agree that there are FAR more important things the government could be using resources on.
One thing I would like to know is this: What do Hone Hariwera’s fellow travellers think of his stance?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 7:37 am
big bruv – Louisa Wall thinks it does and she is entitled to put up a member’s bill on this. Such bills are considered on alternate Wednesdays, perhaps 15% of the House’s time. It would be an affront to democracy if this time is taken away and used for Government business. Actually, the Government does ‘grab’ this from time to time but in so doing risks political scorn.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 7:37 am
Indeed while our economy is in the poo and politicians to the left and right refuse to exploit our mineral wealth to save ourselves, our children and their children’s great grandchildren. We have a problem with the left refusing to submit to the election results that clearly asked for partial sales of assets. We have a whole load of problems with taxes and our best and brightest buggering off overseas…. the list goes on.
This is a simple one off vote. Won’t take long. The pink dollar will help revitalise our economy and face it, the only people oppose it are the same people to refuse to aknowledge dinosaurs and get their philosophy from a book that’s full of slavery, incest and violence. Get this human rights issue sorted and move along to the big things.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 7:44 am
DPF appears obssessed with the subject. Aren’t National’s handling of the economy and welfare reform more important?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 7:46 am
for those of you who are repulsed by the idea of people of the same sex having carnal knowledge of each other – I’m reliably informed that marriage will knock that sort of thing on the head within about 18 months of signing the warrant, sorry, certificate…
So that’s an argument in favour of it really.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 7:59 am
When Members of the House of Representatives have a Conscience Vote is that just how they feel that day after breakfast, or should they actually ask their constituents – as in the ‘Representative’ bit?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 8:00 am
for those of you who are repulsed by the idea of people of the same sex having carnal knowledge of each other
Lee BTW, it’s a remarkably stupid assumption to imagine that those opposed to gay marriage are opposed because they have an objection to gays.
These days even the very elderly recognise gay people have sex. Even those people don’t have a problem with it. None of the people I know who oppose gay marriage oppose it because they oppose gays.
The gay marriage campaigners of course cleverly paint those opposed as being of this mindset, and the useful idiots who think it’s about human rights also believe many opposers do so for this reason but after all, they’re not called useful idiots for nothing, are they. No the campaigners are merely deliberately doing this painting for propaganda reasons, they know the truth as to why people opposed to it oppose it but like all good propagandists they don’t care about the truth and they know that all they have to do is keep pretending the lie is not a lie but merely a simple fact of life and all of the useful idiots will fall straight for it and it will enter their subconscious as an embedded fact.
As you just indicated you have with your first sentence which shouts your useful idiocy to the world loud and clear.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 8:03 am
This is something I disagree with Peter Dunne on. I totally support marriage equality.
And I have also been compiling a list of MP responses and comments: MPs on same sex marriage.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 8:03 am
“..What do Hone Hariwera’s fellow travellers think of his stance?..”
i voted for him last time..
i am somewhat gobsmacked by this prehistoric-’stance’..
phillip ure@whoar.co.nz
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 8:05 am
If you all think it’s a waste of time and that there are bigger things to worry about then why not just let it pass? It could be over in 60 minutes.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 8:10 am
and how many fucks were given? = zero
distractions distractions, run the country
And
Pete
I’m compiling a list of how many sparrows land on my roof today and their responses
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 8:14 am
Oh yes Leaping Jimmy, it’s all a crafty conspiracy to trick everybody into accepting gay marriage. You have caught us out. And here I was thinking it was rather nice to allow homosexuals the same rights as you and I.
Of course you may have a good point I have heard that allowing gay marriage MAY mean utter and complete social decline, natural disasters and mass orgies on the streets. Shit, ever since we allowed women the vote and legalised homosexuality the world has been so much poorer for it.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 8:24 am
So the concept of “equality” can be used to justify or force any issue no matter how ridiculous or self contradictory onto the political agenda and then be given a legal status.
Nuts.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 8:26 am
“..they know the truth as to why people opposed to it oppose it ..”
and that is..?
how exactly do you good-christians justify yr suppression of the basic equalities/rights of others..?
..and who made you fucken god..?
..what fucken degree of self-delusion allows you to think you even have any right to have any say in how others choose to live..?
..you are just another dumb bigot..
..just the latest example of the long history of christian bigotry..
..and as wrong/deluded/fascist as all those who went before you…
phillip ure@whoar.co.nz
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 8:27 am
That depends on if you see yourself as better than they are Kowtow. Or that you are somewhat superior to them. Otherwise why would you be so fussed to giving them the same rights as you and me? It’s not like you’re going to have your life ruined by a few homosexuals getting married are you?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 8:27 am
WTF? Seems like this agenda is being pushed every couple of weeks…
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 8:27 am
You must be having a laugh.
Do you actually read any of the comments made here by Chucky, Fletch, Andrei, Lucia, etc., etc.?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 8:30 am
Exactly eszett! Fletch also denies that many species in the animal kingdom have homosexuality in them. His evidence… because he says it’s not true.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 8:30 am
The fact that this is even a matter for discussion is a sure sign that we are living in a culture that has lost its marbles.
“Marriage Equality” ????? for all you mental midgets who throw this meaningless phrase around with gay abandon you have never been able to marry who you want as a matter of right. You cannot, for example, marry your sister no matter how much you love her and the reason for this is quite profound and goes to the heart of what marriage is about – PROCREATION.
It is not about who you get your rocks off with.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 8:33 am
And here comes Andrei on cue equating gay relationships with incest.
Of course they miss the point as couples that have sex and can’t have children are not procreating either. As well as those using contraceptives… so essentially Fletch and Andrei want to ban gay marriages, infertile couples being married and those using condoms and the pill.
And they think we have lost our marbles???
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 8:40 am
(one of fletchs’/twitchys’ friends..this from this mornings’ news-finds..)
http://whoar.co.nz/2012/maryland-pastor-dennis-leatherman-my-flesh-kind-of-likes-the-idea-of-killing-gays/
“…A number of right-wing authorities have come forward with anti-gay pleas in recent weeks -
- but one Maryland-based pastor has gone one step further -
- saying he “kind of likes” the idea of killing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people…”
phillip ure@whoar.co.nz
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 8:45 am
Read the blog that Andrei and Fletch contribute to with a person called Lucia Marie… http://www.nzconservative.blogspot.co.uk every 2nd or third post is by one of them hating on homosexuals. They have the cheek to say Farrar is obsessed with equal rights but their blog is one very sick puppy that should be put down.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 8:50 am
and doncha luv how twitchy-jim/reid likes to try and conceal his bigotry/hatred in some kind of intellectual-cloak..
..does he fool anyone..?
phillip ure@whoar.co.nz
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 8:55 am
HAHAHA. nzconservative. What a joke. Most of the posts there have 0 or one or two comments.
That’s not an echo-chamber, that’s an echo-facemask.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 8:58 am
Tell me about it. Where have they all retreated to now? The procreation thing was a bit of an own goal there.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 8:59 am
It’s about love and commitment these days, Andrei. Infertile straight couples getting married isn’t considered radical.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:02 am
… which is why male and female cats are allowed to marry and infertile humans are not.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:03 am
This is not a trivial issue. Those who think that it is, should take a look at the massive, truly massive global resources that have been thrown at this campaign, for years. First in Hulun’s day and worldwide, it was Civil Union. Hulun tried to get gay marriage past the gate but for the electorate at that time, it was simply a bridge too far. As it proved to be also globally. But of course they didn’t give up. They said they would. They said that fine, ok, civil union was ok, we’ll settle for that. But they were never going to settle for that. Settling for that, was not part of the long term plan.
So the people went back to sleep for awhile and once a decade or so had passed they launched phase II, the gay marriage bit. Again it was global, in the UK, the US, Europe, Canada, Australia, NZ. Remarkable isn’t it how these campaigns don’t seem to get launched in places like India or China. Isn’t that peculiar, since if it really truly was simply a grassroots human rights upswelling as they want you to believe, then why wouldn’t it also happen in places like that as well? But let’s not ask too many inconvenient questions, shall we.
Anyhoo, look at the global media coordination, the global political coordination, the coordination from the campaigners. If you think all of this is just accidental then you don’t understand anything about how society is engineered. You have no idea what is happening around you. You are a blind sheep and a particularly stupid sheep, at that.
This is not just something that “just happened.” Of course that’s what they want you to think, but remember, in politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, it was engineered to happen. I can’t believe the politically aware people on this blog are so profoundly blind that they can’t see this gay marriage campaign as the engineered political movement that it truly is.
And of course, the next question if you do see it as an engineered movement and not just something that has spontaneously arisen, is to ask yourself, why. Why are all these resources being thrown at what is prima facie a remarkably trivial superficial thing? Gay marriage, who cares? Why does it matter? Baby want a bottle? Give the baby his bottle, is the attitude of many on this. Which again is profound stupidity. Of course the campaigners want you to think that. Of course they pretend it’s trivial, unimportant, that nothing significant is being asked for. But fucking d’oh. If that’s the case, if that really is in fact the case, then why is this truly massive global campaign being waged in the first place? Hello? What’s the answer to that?
The answer of course is that gay marriage is not trivial, it is not insignificant. To the contrary, it is an important milestone in a long term and ongoing social engineering campaign that has been waged in the west since the sixties. Gay marriage is but one of the strands. To put it into context with the other strands, how many of these things do you see happening in western societies today?
1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family
These are recommended areas of attack from a communist think tank called the Frankfurt School if you wanted as rapidly as possible to change the structure of a cohesive Judeo-Christian ethics-based society to one susceptible to complete and outright anarchy a’la Russia in the 1920′s style. So far the campaign’s going exceedingly well, wouldn’t you say. Luckily there is a fuckload of massively stupid sheeple in these societies who despite all the evidence simply refuse to wake up but instead prefer to think it’s all simply accidental and there’s nothing coordinated at all, it’s just a bunch of stuff that’s happening. That’s a very very fortunate thing, if you’re on the side of those who wish to destroy.
Honestly looking at the attitudes of some of the people on this issue, I now completely understand how it came to pass that Hitler was able, in a few short years, to transform the entire German people from one of the most cultured and educated peoples in Europe to one prepared to commit the most horrendous acts of aggression. And to do this right under the noses of the entire world. I now completely understand that some people, no matter how intelligent, will never, ever wake up to what is happening around them, no matter how fucking obvious it is. And I now completely understand that such people actually number in the vast, vast majority in any given society. I don’t know what the answer is, frankly. Other than to ask, what the fuck is wrong with you people.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:05 am
Who is the NZ First person for this bill?
Vote:This is not about marriage , it is about adoption..Only married people can adopt. Where all these children for adoption are going to come from is beyond me..There are so many abortions , it has been difficult for straight people to adopt for years……For much more on this topic , read Ian Wishart’s ”Eve’s Bite.”
June 1st, 2012 at 9:12 am
“..wow..!..who knew gays were that powerful..
look what they have achieved…(according to twitchy-jim..)
“1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family..”
“..what the fuck is wrong with you people..”
the more relevant question..twitchy..is ‘what the fuck is wrong with you’..?
..and you still haven’t given us that ‘real’ reason some christians are so homophobic..
phillip ure@whoar.co.nz
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:14 am
Leaping Jimmy, for fucks sake bro, it’s gay marriage, not the grassy knoll, faked moon landings, the illuminati and your sad Godwin rolled into one. Just two consenting adults in love with each other. You make it sound like it’s the end of life as we know it. Kinda fucked up don’t you think?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:18 am
This is why I actually opposed the Civil Union Act.
China’s not exactly renowned for its freedom and equality. And India has more pressing issues. I’m pretty glad to be living in a country where we can concern ourselves with equal rights and not consider “plumbing in every household” to be a lofty goal.
Who’s saying it’s accidental? It’s a concerted campaign for equal rights. Women’s suffrage didn’t “just happen” either.
Who on earth thinks a civil-rights movement “just happens”?!
The campaigners seem to be trying pretty hard to make it sound important to me.
Can you provide some quotes from Frankfurt School writers laying out this plan?
The thing is, LJ, marriage is about love and commitment between consenting adults these days. It’s not about procreation, because infertile couples can marry without comment. And same-sex couples are integral in plenty of families. And straight couples are involved in plenty of fucked-up families. Promote the values of love, commitment, trust, sacrifice, compassion – these are the values that make strong families, whatever the genders of the people in them.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:25 am
Equal rights my arse – everybody has the right to form a bond with an unrelated adult opposite sex partner and raise a family.
Nobody is denied that.
You people are beyond bizarre.
Tell me why I can’t marry my cat – that makes a much sense as gay marriage does, which is none.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:27 am
No as I said , it is not JUST about gay marriage..It is about children..Gay men are notorious for their huge number of casual relationships..How many ”uncles” does a child need? Children in these situations are at very high risk. I know , I tried to teach some of these boys decades ago..they were lovely but they had no stability and were heading for God knows where…..most likely prison. They were not the product of gay partnerships but they were the product of women who had endless , casual liaisons. This is not a fair or proper environment for children.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:27 am
Andrei, a cat is not a consenting adult. Do you understand that?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:28 am
This is the sort of crap legislation that Mp’s point to when they need to show what they have “achieved”,-
All this is is a distraction because if everyone was honest our economy will not recover until the global economy does.
We are a very small country with the population of a mid size US city, we can be austere which is good but in reality nothing will happen until the world happens.
So in the mean time we have meaningless crap like this getting people wound up.
Pass the fucking bill, it will take less than one hour and move on.
the ten people who believe that this bill will be the end to civilization are mostly insane so just ignore and move on.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:28 am
I agree. But as you note, there are straight couples who bring this badness on their kids. And there are gay couples who do not.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:31 am
Andrei, why in that crazy head of yours is gay marriage akin to you marrying your cat? Are you that fucked in the head?
You tried to justify it before with the procreation bullshit – I note you’ve backed away from that now after being spanked hard.
Try again with some commonsense.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:33 am
Agree with Andrei.
Gay marriage is based on gay “sex”, and anyone who thinks that sodomy is equivalent to actual sexual intercourse (coitus) needs their head examined. How is it in any way the same? The anus is not a sexual organ – it is a sewer line for bodily waste.
All this talk couched in “rights” and “equality” and “fairness” is bullshit. Society has the right to stop that which harms society.
Just this week we’ve had stories about people pushing the boundaries – the Close Up story of someone from a Govt dept approving sex with a minor, the story about a guy wanting to marry twins (polygamy), and same sex adoption. It’s all going to come about.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:34 am
“..I tried to teach some of these boys decades ago..they were lovely but they had no stability and were heading for God knows where…..most likely prison. They were not the product of gay partnerships..”
oh well..at least joana has worked out that gays can’t procreate…
..she seems to be conflating her distaste for the offspring of sole-parents…with her hatred of gays..
..is that a bigotry mash-up..?
phillip ure@whoar.co.nz
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:38 am
“the ten people who believe that this bill will be the end to civilization are mostly insane so just ignore and move on.”
If that was the case why are most all of the liberal proponents of this mad idea oppose a referendum?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:41 am
Fletch agrees with Andrei, gee what a surprise. Are either of you going to justify the bizarre statement about procreation that was made above? Oh and what about a celibate gay couple? Are they more inclined to be “safe” for marriage? And what about straight couples that engage in anal sex? It’s quite common.
I love that the words “rights” “fairness” and “equality” are excluded from your vocabulary, just as you think the actions of people in their private property is your business. And to cap it off, you say you’re concerned that gays will have sex with minors or adopt kids…the irony is amusing considering you are both Catholics, a hotbed of sick child abuse and paedophilia that is continuing to be covered up as fast as it occurs.
Your beliefs are more dangerous than any gay marriage law.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:42 am
You’re a bit fasinated about the anus there Fletch ol’ buddy .
Joana @ 9.27
Might I suggest you read that comment of yours because if there was ever a advertisement for gay marriage you just posted it, welcome aboard
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:42 am
Liberal Minded Kiwi – why do you think marriage came about in the first place?
Why is it universal throughout history and the world today that there arose an institution whereby people of one gender were bonded with people of the opposite gender in a publicly acknowledge way?
See for those with the intelligence of a gnat this is a hard question to answer but for those who can actually think for themselves the answer is readily apparent, to continue as a species children have to be raised which is a time consuming and expensive proposition. So by bonding the men to women children may be raised more easily because the father of said children is intimately involved in ensuring their nurture and survival. He is honour bound to do so.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:43 am
If an can repeat the stats from a Yahoo! poll this month –
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/mp/13695877/yahoo-poll-results-gay-marriage/
So, I’m assuming that means another 20% are undecided? Which means only 38% out of 100% actually intentionally support gay marriage. Although this issue is trying to be pushed HARD by the Left, the numbers don’t show real support.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:46 am
You’re a bit fasinated about the anus there Fletch ol’ buddy .
Pauleastbay, because the sex is what it’s all about really, isn’t it? As in homosexual
Vote:In reality, homosexuality is nothing more than same-gender conduct among people who are innately and unchangeably heterosexual.
June 1st, 2012 at 9:46 am
Yet there are other self-selecting polls that give a majority support. One of the online dailies (nzherald or stuff) had a poll where supporters outnumbered you lot 2-1.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:48 am
Chuck
because if there is a bigger waste of money than referendum I would like iot shown to me.
I’m off in about an hour to Auckland to see my wife, I will say hello to the gay couple who live next door, I’ll have a cuppa with them.
Because we have a piece of paper saying we are married, I am wondering how their relationship is in anyway inferior to ours. In fact theirs is probably superior as they live together but we are apart because of work.
And Fletch these two are very very attractive women,no anus’s will be used in the course of this relationship
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:49 am
“..it is a sewer line for bodily waste…”
so is the penis..
..yr point..?
phillip ure@whoar.co.nz
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:50 am
Gay marriage is based on love and commitment between two consenting adults, just as straight marriage is.
“Society” doesn’t have a right to discriminate via the machinery of the state against consenting adults on the basis of with whom they fall in love.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:50 am
Andrei, you haven’t explained why gay marriage makes no sense. You claim it’s about procreation, yet you’d presumably have no problem with infertile couples marrying.
Maybe I’m taking the whole procreation thing too literally. Let’s be generous and assume that you believe that that a male and female provide the optimum environment to raise children (even if they can’t have them.) Well, perhaps we should deny those social groups more likely to abuse their children the right to marry?
Maybe you are informed by your faith, even through Jesus has nothing to say on homosexuality, and the Old Testament very little. (Although Leviticus is very clear on the matter, it is also clear on cattle not grazing with other kinds of cattle, not growing multiple kinds of crops on the same field, not wearing clothes made of more than one fabric, not cutting your hair or shaving, and executing a broad range of people.) Perhaps maybe Romans 1:18a 21–27 strikes a very strong chord with you, more so than Jesus’ messages of forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, and love.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:51 am
Liberal Minded Kiwi, actually there was no more offending in the Catholic Church then any other secular organisation. The media liked to paint it as a “hotbed”, but it wasn’t. IN fact, Carol Shakeshaft did a report for U.S govt in the 2004 that reckoned “… the physical sexual abuse of students in [public] schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by [Catholic] priests.”
So why aren’t you concerned about teachers?
And yes, it’s been shown that gays are more likely to engage in sex with minors – in fact NAMBLA and other gay groups often march together.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:51 am
LOL what?
Speaking as someone who held his newborn son as he opened his eyes and took his first breaths barely a week ago, I’m pretty sure the reason most men stick around to raise their children is NOT because he has a written marriage “contract” telling them he must do so
I pity people who cannot form any morality of their own, beyond what Jesus tells them they should do…
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:53 am
The thing is, LJ, marriage is about love and commitment between consenting adults these days.
Ryan we’ve been over this previously, hope you don’t mind if I don’t re-engage on stuff we’ve been over. Happy to do so on new angles though if you have any other thoughts. Re: the Frankfurt School you can drive google as well if not better than I, I imagine.
You make it sound like it’s the end of life as we know it.
LMK in some of the previous Kiwiblog threads on this topic I have explained what gay marriage will do to the institution of marriage and how and why it will damage the family unit, in great depth. I suggest you just google “kiwiblog leaping jimmy gay marriage” and you should get something. Let me know if not.
the ten people who believe that this bill will be the end to civilization are mostly insane so just ignore and move on.
Yes Paul, isn’t it a shame there are many many people like you who are so very willing, almost eager, to give up something so precious so readily?
Tell me, let’s take sex ed and the fact that these days many many intermediate-aged children are now having sex. And that this is a direct outcome of the sex education social engineering implemented by the same bastards that are behind gay marriage, several decades ago. Tell me if you think it’s really really healthy and good for 11-12 year old girls to just have sex with their classmates at that age? Is that a good thing or would it be better for those children if they were like the girls were like when we were their age and they waited until they were much much older and more emotionally mature before they undertook that life changing experience? Tell me if you think it’s just fine and healthy for those 11 and 12 year olds, these days, to have sex, because it’s their “human wight” and that their innocence and childhood at that age isn’t compromised in any way by the actions they are in fact taking today, based on what adults have done to them, several decades ago.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:54 am
ah here come the hateful christians again, spewing their hateful dogma and rhetoric.
Andrei, why are you lot so full of Hate?
i appreciate that if you do everything the bible says you have to do, your life would make no sense as its completely contradictory, but you lot cherry pick from it anyway so keep calm and chive on.
however its amusing that at least one of you is trying to claim that this will lead to polygamy and thats a bad thing. so you disagree with the part of the bible that says you have to marry your brothers widow and take her kids for your own? if you are already married thats going to make you a polygamist. why are you not campaigning to return us to this state of ‘traditional’ marriage?
since the bible is the literal word of god, you cannot claim this is wrong so go on, campaign for this.
or you could just stay hateful confused little people. i am sure Lucia will be along soon to show us just how hateful, close minded a person can be and just how much she can fuck up her kids. the good thing is that kids usually rebel against nutjub parents so they should be ok.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:54 am
“Society” doesn’t have a right to discriminate via the machinery of the state against consenting adults on the basis of with whom they fall in love.
Society also does not have the right to use the “machinery of State” to lawfully approve the conduct of people, when said conduct goes against nature. I don’t see animals committing sodomy, do you? I guess they instinctively know how to copulate.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:55 am
Unlike many liberals I have serious concerns about children being sexually abused. We have a case here of a 14 year old girl who was sexually abused by two adult males and liberal counsellors protected the perpetrators and the family court also helped in the cover up. You liberals seem to have you priorities wrong. You are more concerned about the rights of homosexuals to have trophy children than holding paedophiles and their accomplices accountable.
If any of you have an open mind check out the link.
Consumers Voice New Zealand
http://consumersvoicenz.com/2012/05/31/cyf-rosa-trust-counselling-family-court-endorse-under-age-sex-with-a-minor-close-up-30512/
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:56 am
Ah, so it is the New World Order that is responsible. Does that mean that it was the proponents of gay marriage that were responsible for 9/11 too LJ. Do illuminat-i us
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:56 am
No Andrei, the reason why you can’t marry your sister is because coitus with her carries a high risk of substantial harm – corporeal harm, not imaginary ethereal harm.
Because a cat can’t consent to marriage, and a human forcing sex on a cat is both cruel and an abuse of power.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:56 am
Grendel, we do not HATE. I don’t HATE gays. I work with a couple of gay guys sometimes who are very nice.
You’re putting words in our mouths. Since when is disagreeing with what someone does considered HATE. I don’t like people smoking around me, but I don’t HATE them for it.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 9:58 am
Fletch, you and that Yahoo survey! It’s the 3rd time you’ve tried using it and I have to say it’s hilarious. Yahoo is awfully inaccurate, although more credible than your bible
You still have not justified the procreation comment, although its getting depraved now that you’re equating gay people as the kiddy fiddlers and that it’s a grand conspiracy against the Catholic church who don’t molest more than any other group.
I’m gobsmacked! You guys really are from another planet.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 10:00 am
Yes, last time we talked about this, you spent a whole day claiming marriage was about procreation and then admitted that your problem with gay marriage is that it’s gay, not that it’s unprocreative. Which was the last we heard from you on the matter. So that radical reversal of your argument is stuff we haven’t been over.
Re: Frankfurt School, you were claiming things about intents and plans, so I figured you might have something specific in mind. I haven’t read much of the Frankfurt School of thought. I enjoyed Marcuse a lot, but couldn’t get far into Adorno. Didn’t find any “promotion of excessive drinking”, etc.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 10:00 am
Leaping Jimmy, your opposition to gay marriage seems to be because it is one strand in some kind of social engineering plot. Presumably the civil rights (i.e. anti-apartheid/segregation) and women’s suffrage movements are other strands. But you don’t explain what gay marriage will do to straight marriage (specifically yours, if you’re married) and how it will damage the family unit (specifically yours, if you have one.)
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 10:02 am
imagine the horror of being a child of these hate-filled bigots…if you were gay..?
..you wd be paralysed with fear from them finding out…
..and from how much they hate you..
phillip ure@whoar.co.nz
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 10:02 am
Scott Chris, gay “relationships” also carry corporeal harm. And you want to expose children to that?
Gays have had the right to marry in Canada since 2005. Is it all roses over there now? Not according to gay magazine XTRA – here’s an excerpt from February 2009 –
That is from their own magazine.
So, lower life expectancy, suicide, higher rates of substance abuse, depression, higher rates of anal cancer in the gay male, lesbians have higher rates of breast cancer – and you want to approve and promote the lifestyle that is a result of all this?
Has gay marriage helped? No. it has probably just exposed more people to this harmful lifestyle.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 10:04 am
bullshit fletch, you dont like them thats for sure. in fact so seriously do you not like gays you try to equate homosexuality and paedophilia, which is patent bull shit as well.
you can try and claim all sorts of bullshit, but you are full of hate. you hate the actions and lifestyle of people who have done nothing to you, all becuase of the implied word of your ‘all loving’ deity. you hate the essence of who they are, and what they are.
so you are trying to make us beleive that you hate everything about gays, their actions, their beliefs, their lifestyles, but you somehow like them. sure… the truth is you hate everything about them, which means you hate them.
you can spin it all you want, but you are full of hate. a small minded, petty, hateful bigot.
gays are perfectly happy to let you worship your sky pixie in private despite how dangerous your beliefs are, why cant you do the same for them and their totally benign beliefs?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 10:04 am
@ LJ ..the ten people who believe that this bill will be the end to civilization are mostly insane so just ignore and move on.
Yes Paul, isn’t it a shame there are many many people like you who are so very willing, almost eager, to give up something so precious so readily?
Reid
What is precious? Marriage? please do fuck off… I’m fortunate that my wife has had the good sense to hang around for 22 years, a marriage certificate hasn’t done that, its has been because of my superior skills in the sack I don’t have time to provide a link from google for this fact so you’ll just have to take my word.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 10:05 am
Which was the last we heard from you on the matter.
That’s because it was 11:00 PM Ryan.
So can you please repeat the point you were making, I read a few comments up but I don’t get what you are saying. Honestly, I don’t get your point.
What is precious? Marriage?
No, family, Paul. It’s about the family unit as a construct in society. The unit to which one turns in times of need. And the desire from the engineers to replace that with the state. That’s what it’s about. Sorry I thought that was obvious from all the discussions we’ve had on this, I know it hasn’t been spelt out today but it has been previously on these threads.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 10:06 am
it’s a grand conspiracy against the Catholic church who don’t molest more than any other group.
They don’t.
Vote:And Andrei has talked about procreation being the basis for marriage several times. Are you blind?
June 1st, 2012 at 10:06 am
I’ve seen at least some animals committing sodomy. While the rabbit couldn’t get enough, the hamster didn’t enjoy it much. Appalling situation, in retrospect, but at age 14 we found it hilarious.
I also see animals killing and eating each other, eating each other’s children, etc. The outcomes of natural impulses in humans include theft, rape, murder, addiction, etc. Much of society is built on confronting and denying nature in the name of higher ideals. And it’s those higher ideals to which we appeal when arguing for keeping the state from discriminating based on some people’s ideas of how everyone else should live: liberty, equality, etc.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 10:07 am
“..I work with a couple of gay guys sometimes who are very nice. ..”
do you conceal from them that you are a raging bigot..?
..or do you let it ‘hang out’..(as it were..)
..would you be comfortable showing them the hatred/bigotry you preach in this forum..
..preaching done while cowering/snivelling behind a fake-name..?..(cojones the size of peas..eh..?..)
phillip ure@whoar.co.nz
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 10:08 am
Sure. I’ll ask the question for… the fourth time?
What is the difference, for the purposes of your definition of marriage (that you claim is common to most New Zealanders), between a non-child-bearing straight couple and a non-child-bearing gay couple?
When you finally answered this question, your answer was:
Is that still your answer?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 10:10 am
you can try and claim all sorts of bullshit, but you are full of hate.
How the fuck do you know that Grendel? Do you know Fletch personally? If not, then how the fuck do you know? This is like non-Christians pretending they know how Christians think because they’ve read Leviticus and they think what happens in church is all about leprosy prevention. That’s about as much sense as your allegation.
Is that still your answer?
Yes it is. Why? Do you understand what I’m saying, Ryan? You seem not to from what you said about that response, above. There is significance in my use of the quotes you know. Perhaps you missed that significance.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 10:12 am
Grendel, I am perfectly happy for gays to do what they want – in the privacy of their own home. What I’m NOT happy to let them do (and will fight against) is for them to redefine an institution so that they don’t feel guilty and/or left out.
Look, what if a group decided that instead of “eating” orally, they were now doing to blend their food up and inhale it – use a different hole, so to speak. I would have no problem with that. But what if they wanted to change the law so that it was considered a normal and viable way to eat, so that now restaurants had to comply with their wants and provide blenders and nose hoses at every table. That kids were taught how to do it in school – that it was just another way of eating. Would you be OK with that?
Again, I DON’T CARE what people do in private. I DO CARE when a relationship based on a perversion is pushed to become law.
Question: do you consider sodomy and sexual intercourse to be equal?
If so, then why?
Second question: Do so-called “gay” animals commit sodomy?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 10:13 am
“you’re equating gay people as the kiddy fiddlers ”
What is wrong with that since it is true?
It is a fact that Maori children are a abused at a higher rate than European children taking the percentage of Maori in the population.
It is also a fact that boys are sexually abused at a higher rate by men than girls are by men. Men who abuse boys are homosexuals. Homosexual men make up about 2% of the male population yet there are nearly as many boys sexually abused as girls mainly due to homosexual offending.
Placing a boy with a couple of male homosexuals will put boys at high risk not necessarily by the adoptive parents but their friends. Responsible parents would not let their children particularly adolescents go to homosexual households.
Why is it not racist to point out the former but homophobic to point out the latter?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 10:14 am
“..then how the fuck do you know? ..”
they..like you..are judged on their words…
phillip ure@whoar.co.nz
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 10:17 am
Well reid
I always thought that the shirt lifters had families as well, a homosexual couple is different from a hetrosexual couple who are unable to have kids ,how?
Naive in the extreme to trot out “family” as a reason to oppose, I know many many families who are so dysfunctional on all levels that they shouldn’t be allowed oxygen, so it s a straw man argument you have, you’ve painted yourself into a corner and are desperately trying to get out of jail, best you withdraw now while you still have a shred of dignity.
And by the way, I wasn’t suggesting you were one of the insane, you’re just different, the truly insane blog on NZ Conservative.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 10:17 am
To see the well-defined connections between homosexuality and paedophilia read this –
http://www.mega.nu/ampp/baldwin_pedophilia_homosexuality.pdf
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 10:17 am
I’m sorry, I’m missing the meaning in the quotes. Can you explain?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 10:18 am
That’s an astonishing statement Fletch.
Most of what we do in a civilised society “goes against nature”. We build shelters to keep the weather out, and we punish the strong when they triumph over the weak in ways the rest of us deem “unfair” or “wrong.” We selectively breed and intensively farm animals and crops so that we can feed billions more people, than the jungles could support if we were still running naked through the forest hunting monkeys. We develop medicines to prevent natural things like bacteria, viruses, fungi and trauma from destroying our bodies.
The beauty about civilisation is, it’s better than the natural law of the jungle. That’s the whole reason we do it.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 10:20 am
I always thought that the shirt lifters had families as well, a homosexual couple is different from a hetrosexual couple who are unable to have kids ,how?
Vote:Because –
June 1st, 2012 at 10:22 am
That really doesn’t cut it, Fletch. Your “in principle” is in direct conflict with “in reality”.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 10:24 am
RRM, I don’t know whether I’d agree with that. Bird’s build nests. Beavers build dams. Many creates create some kind of a home for themselves. Parents also go out and get food for the little ones which they bring back – birds bring back worms for their young.
The beauty about civilisation is, it’s better than the natural law of the jungle.
So you’re saying homosexual “sex’ is better than the sex we see in Nature? Just how exactly?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 10:25 am
Ryan, how so?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 10:25 am
Poor analogy, for a number of reasons, primarily gay marriage doesn’t impose any demands on anyone else, nor does it (or at least shouldn’t) devalue anyone’s existing marriage or family. For those who think that it does (who are married and have families), please explain how it devalues yours.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 10:26 am
Fletch
In “principle” – no ovaries but we have our principles love, so we won’t be cast out. FFS
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 10:29 am
Because in reality, infertile couples can’t have children, and if your criteria for marriage eligibility is the capacity for childbearing, in reality those straight couples do not meet your criteria.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 10:44 am
way to go to promote christianity…you bigots…
phillip ure@whoar.co.nz
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 10:46 am
Ryan you’re missing the point here. The reason gays can’t have the institution of marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not they have kids. It has everything to do with the fact they are not physically capable of having kids. It’s just not physically possible. Yes of course they can adopt, but that’s not the same as giving birth.
And that’s the one thing that nature has reserved for a man and a woman and no matter how much wailing and weeping about how unjust and unfair it all is from all the gays, nature isn’t going to change anytime soon on this.
Therefore, ergo, the only possible conclusion one can make from this data, using logic, is that a gay relationship is not natural. That’s the law of nature. Sorry, it is. If it wasn’t unnatural, then the species would be able to procreate since that is the purpose of the law of nature. That’s what nature does. But if every single member of any given species was gay, nature would eliminate it. Therefore, whether or not you like it, the only possible conclusion is that a gay relationship is not natural.
It matters not if the odd animal pairing is gay. That particular pairing will also die out, won’t they, and the gene pool for that species will be altered accordingly. Won’t it. That’s how it works.
Now this is a massively inconvenient truth, isn’t it. Lots of weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, isn’t there. But it’s simple logic, isn’t it. Unassailable, simple, logic. Period.
So why the hell are people so keen to provide to members of our own species who do this, keys to the institution which is responsible for nurturing our young? Because we are compassionate? Is that why? Well OK, fine. So what’s wrong with giving them an ability to adopt, via some other act, just not the marriage act? Why is it necessary to change the marriage act to give them what they want? Why can’t we give them the same rights as married couples have, but just not call it marriage? What, precisely, is wrong with doing it like that? What about that approach is not compassionate in every single way?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 10:50 am
I don’t see the need for homosexual marriage as we have created an institution to have homosexual relationships legally recognised by the state, civil unions. To change marriage to include homosexual marriage is, to me, illogical as it denies the reality of the difference between the two types of relationship.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 10:51 am
Exactly Jeremy.
But that’s not what the gays want. The gays pretend it’s discwiminatowy and the useful idiots who don’t know what they’re granting, agree with the gays.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 10:53 am
It’s not compassionate it is highly exclusionary. You obviously have no idea of the ongoing dispair gay people like me go through with regards the discrimination we face. Marriage equality is a way of alleviating that.
I never thought too much about it before the past couple of years but now I realise the effect this exclusion has on gay people. It’s crushing.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 10:57 am
@boredboy, one of my gay friends recently said to me, “I don’t care about the issue as I’m gay and don’t want any part of a hetero thing”, an outlier opinion but I think a valid one.
I think if you study the origins of marriage you’ll realise it has little to do with the situation modern homosexual people find themselves in and celebrate that you can have your status legally recognised by the state via civil unions.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 11:00 am
The same is true of infertile straight couples. It’s just not physically possible. That’s what infertile means.
Nature has reserved this for fertile straight couples.
Just as infertile straight couples are not natural, by your standards.
As will infertile straight human pairings.
For the same reason that it would be wrong to give interracial couples the ability to legally adopt without recognising their union as marriage. It’s the message that such legislation sends. Laws should not discriminate. You should still be able to discriminate – you should be able to refuse to call a same-sex couple a “marriage” without legal consequence, and churches should be able to refuse to perform ceremonies for same-sex couples without legal consequence, etc. But laws should not discriminate.
Now, you probably believe that there are people out there who would like there to be negative legal consequences for refusing to call a same-sex couple a marriage or for a church refusing to marry a gay couple. If you believe this, I agree with you. There almost certainly are people out there who would like that. I actually oppose them as I oppose state marriage discrimination.
But laws should not discriminate.
Ideally, I think that the best way for marriage laws to not discriminate is to have no marriage laws at all. The state can keep right out of it, thanks. But while we’re stuck with the state getting involved, it should get involved without discrimination.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 11:03 am
I also know some gay people who think that way and find it a bit sad. By far the majority of gay people would support marriage equality. People like your friend are arguing against something they are not even entitled to and that makes even less sense than people who argue against something that will have no effect on them whatsoever.
It’s fine to study the origins of marriage but these days it’s the default marriage recognition system, regardless of whether you can procreate, are religious or whathaveyou. Civil Unions are simply an apartheid system that devalues our relationships and is just as bad as no recognition at all.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 11:09 am
LJ, “marriage” is not an element of nature – it is wholly a man-made institution. The “law of nature” has no relevance to whether or not this man-made institution should allow gay marriage.
(Or, given your insistence of a link between the “law of nature” and marriage, do you have some evidence that only married people are able to procreate?)
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 11:10 am
FFS I am sick of self absorbed self centered people smearing feces all over marriage.
I raised four children, I have invested 25 years of my life and at least couple of million dollars into this enterprise. My children are the people who will pay the taxes to keep you selfish, self absorbed, self indulgent, queers in your dotage in the style which you parasitic hedonists feel that you are entitled.
Got no time for you anymore – just contempt.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 11:13 am
Andrei, I am guessing I’m about the same age as your children.
Being a single white male without kids I am probably going to end up paying more tax than all four of them.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 11:15 am
That was a little out of left field.
Andrei, just to be clear, you do understand that cats aren’t people, right?
You haven’t been doing anything silly like bequeathing your house to your cat or trying to get your cat a learner’s driving permit, have you?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 11:21 am
# boredboy (111) Says:
June 1st, 2012 at 10:53 am
“It’s not compassionate it is highly exclusionary. You obviously have no idea of the ongoing dispair gay people like me go through with regards the discrimination we face. Marriage equality is a way of alleviating that.
I never thought too much about it before the past couple of years but now I realise the effect this exclusion has on gay people. It’s crushing.”
Boredboy
No matter if the Homosexual activists force through the changes they want to be accepted.
Marriage is between and man and a woman and nothing is going to change that.
Remember this, (think on it), in the hearts of people all around you, that is what they are going to be thinking, regardless of the law or even what they might or might not say to your face.
If that crushes you now, I don’t know how forcing a law change is going to change that for you.
A man cannot marry a man as it is not natural, marriage is for Husband and Wife and the Kids out of that union.
Vote:That is the basic building block of society, has been and will be in the future.
June 1st, 2012 at 11:22 am
It’s fine to study the origins of marriage but these days it’s the default marriage recognition system, regardless of whether you can procreate, are religious or whathaveyou. Civil Unions are simply an apartheid system that devalues our relationships and is just as bad as no recognition at all.
Marriage vs. civil unions, isn’t like whether black people in the american south should have been allowed to use the same loos as whites, stupid divisions based solely on skin colour, but as a homosexual you know there are fundamental differences as to the nature of relationships between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
It’s important to remember that marriage predates government by at least a millenia and only within the last couple of hundred years became something codified by government, so an argument can be made whether the government even can define the institution. The “old” standard of marriage was if your neighbour deem you married and you have undergone a ceremony and signed a contract/licence then you were married. Doesn’t it annoy you that you have to go hat in hand to the government, when under the “old” system you could simply find a Church that recognises gay marriage as legitimate?
Secondly it’s important to remember why marriage originated, is a universal human institution and has remained to this day. It was large driven by parents who wanted to pick a suitable spouse for their child and to bind them together legally and financially (hence dowries) for (largely) the purpose of procreation and a forming a stable family environment. Marriage arouse from this and took it’s strength as an institution due to some fundamental, irrevocable facts:
- Men had more economic power (this is declining since industrialisation but it is a origin as they were/are physically stronger)
- Women can become pregnant, men can’t and men can leave
- Women are superior childrearers (on average, especially historically) but are largely economically powerless while childrearing
- Men whose wives had children conceived adulterously were required to take legal responsibility for the children, a way of ensuring that despite human hanky pankness, children still had a good chance at a stable childhood
So marriage was largely born out of the differences between men and women and these difference are the answer to the question, “Why should non-procreating heterosexuals be allowed to marry?”, because it’s a straight thing is the simple answer.
Finally despite the obfuscation above, communists like Saul Alinsky, et al have written extensively about the need to redefine the family as a means to advance the cause of undermining freedom.
I think creating civil unions has allowed us to maintain freedom by allowing consenting adults to legal join themselves but redefining marriage into a non-heterosexual instituion is illogical as the differences between men and women is what gave rise to it.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 11:24 am
Manolo (6,517) Says:
June 1st, 2012 at 7:44 am
I wondered about that too, maybe he’s under orders?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 11:26 am
Michael Mckee, I think you’ll find that most people are in support of marriage equality. A recent poll on Stuff had supporters outnumbering those opposed to it by a ratio of two-to-one.
I think what you should be doing is remembering that in the hearts of all the people around you, they hold values that are at odds with yours.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 11:30 am
@Jeremy. Exactly, that is the OLD system. Society has come a long way since then. Under the OLD system, you also owned your wife and all sorts of other rediculous things that I can’t recall right now. You will have heard about them. You were legally allowed to rape your wife etc.
Envoking the classic purposes and meaning of marriage isn’t very smart.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 11:30 am
like others..i blame all those heterosexual-parents…
..for having so many gay children…
phillip ure@whoar.co.nz
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 11:32 am
It’s only a legal definition of marriage that’s being amended. Various religious and cultural takes on the matter can continue to use the term however they want.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 11:32 am
@MM “Marriage is between and man and a woman and nothing is going to change that.”
Nine countries around the world already recognise same-sex marriage so that’s just out-and-out wrong. I give it 10 years max for NZ.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 11:33 am
Leaping Jimmy (10,709) Says:
June 1st, 2012 at 8:00 am
“for those of you who are repulsed by the idea of people of the same sex having carnal knowledge of each other ”
That isn’t my perspective at all.
The issue is marriage is for a man and woman to build a family, that builds a whanau, that builds a society, this is the normal process and structure of life.
Whether they like it or not homosexuals are a variation from the norm, an aberration and don’t do that by definition if they remain true to their feelings/choice.
and yes thank you for the tax
Before philosophy or faith came into it for me, I had already decided that design showed that men were made for women and visa versa and that is the default of nature for the process of life.
Vote:That some choose otherwise merely highlights it is software not hardware and therefore a choice, as many many people have shown over the centuries.
June 1st, 2012 at 11:36 am
Your software isn’t your choice, especially considering that it’s your software that does the choosing.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 11:38 am
Bored boy
it doesn’t matter if all the countries in the world change their laws.
Marriage is between a man and a woman and nothing is going to change that.
Most of the people around you will think that too, no matter what they say.
If this wasn’t being driven (deliberately) as a “you’re wicked and unfeeling for not supporting me!” attitude coupled with a deliberate push at the younger people over the past 2-3 decades it would not have got this far.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 11:38 am
What you don’t realize yet, being so self absorbed, is that the Western World is in a state of major crisis, a crisis that has its genesis in the fact that for the past forty years not enough children have been born to keep things going and that the post WW2 generation are reaching the end of their productive lives.
For now the sun still shines but not for long – the wealth of the West has been squandered
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 11:40 am
Hope you and your kids enjoy my tax money, Andrei.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 11:41 am
Ryan Sproull (4,918) Says:
June 1st, 2012 at 11:32 am
rubbish!
It is dilution of the brand, even you can understand that.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 11:41 am
Envoking the classic purposes and meaning of marriage isn’t very smart.
To be honest I don’t think that comment is very smart.
For example think about the origins of the long held tradition of “corporate benefit”, a company director must act in the most profitable manner as the shareholders invested for the purpose of maximum long term profitability. If you want to ignore the reasons “corporate benefit” arose and redefine a company so CEO’s don’t have to act in the “corporate benefit” and can give money away to charities as they see fit despite what shareholders think, to me that is a nonsense idea. You create a new institution, a charitable trust or chartiable incorporation.
That’s what we did with the creation of civil unions, recognised marriage was a heterosexual institution, arose due to the differences between men and women and redefining it to include homosexual relationships would make a nonsense of it, but in the interests of allowing free consenting adults to legal ajoin themselves created a new institution.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 11:42 am
If you need the state to tell you what your religious and cultural beliefs are, you’re in trouble.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 11:43 am
MM, I’m pushing for it because I’m gay and, like many people my age, came to this position ourselves. For you to say that I have been pushed or influenced in some way is insulting.
And I’m not asking for your support. I’m just asking for people like you to mind your own business.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 11:45 am
Comparing relationships to business arrangements? This is real bottom of the barrel stuff.
I’ve got work to do. Bye.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 11:46 am
Andrei – do you think same-sex marriage will reduce the rate of childbirth?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 11:49 am
On please…there is no such law of nature. The only thing this demonstrates is you are utterly confused about basic biology. If you were remotely correct then ants would be an utter evolutionary failure because of the enormous investment of resources into non-procreating members of the colony. In so far as there is any ‘purpose’ sic to life, it is the passage of genes from one generation to the next. That can be done directly or indirectly through kin. There is no law of nature that declares you must maximise the number of offspring to be a successful species.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 11:49 am
And I’m not asking for your support. I’m just asking for people like you to mind your own business.
But we are minding our own business, if the state goes around redefining foundational societal institutions on which own wealth, freedom, health and happiness are built it affects all of us.
The state has already undermined property rights via the RMA, etc. Capitalism through overtaxation, regulation, ETS, etc., etc. If it redefines a cornerstone institution built on the differences between man and woman in a grand social experiment, we rightly worry whether this will have a further negative effect on two heterosexual parent families and the stability that comes with that.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 11:54 am
Comparing relationships to business arrangements? This is real bottom of the barrel stuff.
Again, I realise you don’t like the conclusion of my arguments but you’ve massively missed the point. The point was, why do we do things certain ways? What condition, ireevocable facts led to this way of doing things? What is the benefit? If we want to change an existing institution or grant a new legal contract/system what is the best way to do that?
It’s my belief that redifining an institution thousands of years old that arose out of the differences between men and women to include homosexuals isn’t something we should be doing, especially when we already created a new institution to allow free people to choose to join themselves legally.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 11:55 am
It’s not redefining marriage. The definition of marriage stays the same, and is no longer restricted through discrimination.
Was marriage redefined in the US in 1967 when restrictions on interracial marriages were removed?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 11:57 am
“The fact that you can’t sell your daughter for three goats and a cow means we’ve already redefined marriage.”
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Not sure if that argument works. If you arbitrarily confine marriage to being between just ‘people’ then you could just as easily argue that marriage should be confined to heterosexual people.
Personally I find arguments in favour of homosexual marriage based on social harm/benefit to be more convincing. Otherwise we couldn’t have Klingons marrying Humans now could we?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Ryan Sproull
“…Was marriage redefined in the US in 1967 when restrictions on interracial marriages were removed?…”
Of course it f***** wasn’t because blacks NEW what Marriage was – between a man and a woman.
Blacks NEVER asked for may garage !
“….It’s not redefining marriage. The definition of marriage stays the same, and is no longer restricted through discrimination….”
There is NO discrimination or rights violations as EVERY individual has the F***** right TO get Married.
“….It’s not redefining marriage…”
Yes it F***** is – as 2 men or 2 women CANNOT get Married !
Your either completly stupid or a completly dishonest may garage supporter !
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 12:06 pm
What, are you trying to say you had kids for the good of society and not because you, a typically selfish and self-absorbed human simply wanted to have kids?
Foolish pride is one of the worst sins Andrei.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 12:07 pm
can’t let that stand RYAN.
Vote:Opposition to Interracial marriage was based on racism and hatred, gay marriage is an attempt to totally repudiate everything marriage has ever been.
June 1st, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Yes, that’s what they said then, too.
Marriage is about love and commitment between two adults. Marriage equality for race did not redefine it. Marriage equality for sexual preference will not redefine it.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Jeremy (320) Says:
June 1st, 2012 at 11:49 am
Your points are valid and sound.
all that is happening is the discussion keeps getting “reframed”. once it has been responded to, the issue gets reframed yet again.
If McDonalds took issue with someone called MacDonalds, it would be a senior mark taking issue with a junior mark.
That it might be in a similar or same field merely adds grist to the mill, it is still diluting the distinctive quality of the former or senior mark.
However by giving equal rights to MacDonald’s it takes rights away from McDonalds and this is what they intend and have all along.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 12:15 pm
Sorry Ryan there you go again reframing.
Vote:No, marriage is between a man and a woman and sometimes they are in Love and are committed to each other.
June 1st, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Marriage equality for sexual preference will not redefine it.
Yes it will this is exactly why they want to do it. This is standard social engineering Ryan, how come you don’t get this, it’s not rocket science.
If this is not what they want to do then why don’t the gays settle for something other than an amendment to the marriage act? Why isn’t for example civil unions enough for them? Why?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 12:19 pm
EDIT RYAN
Vote:Also being black or white is different from homosexuality.
As many black people in America are taking issue with right now with the homosexual lobby over their trying to use the human rights issues the blacks had.
As you probably well know
June 1st, 2012 at 12:19 pm
If gay marriage is voted down, I would support a partial income tax rebate for gays.
Fewer rights = less taxation, seems fair?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 12:20 pm
– quoted in Loving v Virginia, 1967.
– Perez v Lippold, 1948.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 12:22 pm
You think that the sex of the people involved is more important than love and commitment?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 12:22 pm
RRM
Vote:No, not at all.
society always pays collectively for the next generation, that some choose not to have children is their choice.
society naturally replenishes.
all those new people will be customers in the future for all the entities/companies in society.
June 1st, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Oh, that’s just your social engineering talking. Go to the states before social engineering in the ’60s and you’ll find plenty of people agreeing that interracial marriage is just as contradictory a term as gay marriage.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 12:23 pm
Gays in San Fransico kill themselves at the same rate as gays living in most other places.
Which of course then means that ‘homophobic’ societys are NOT the cause of gay suicide.
Therefor May Garage on behalf of a caring society is NOT going to make gays ‘feel’ anymore better about themselves and the dangerous deadend lifestyle that they live.
Committing oneself to an institution that is the total opposite of the gay lifestyle can only then lead to a sense of lessor satisfaction again, as Marriage is a restraint on a man and womens sexuality.And that restraint is for the purpose of ‘sheltering’ the next generation of children in a relationship that nurtures them into mature adulthood.
The very same mature adulthood that then protects the next generation of gays from bigotry, bashings and killings.Todays gays themselves, can’t do anything about the responsabilities of the next generation of adults towards the gays within that generation as todays gays don’t procreate – hense the deadend lifestyle.
In other words – if gays want to protect the next generation of gays from harm – then STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM MARRIAGE !
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 12:23 pm
RRM, what fewer rights do they have with civil unions?
What?
The right to adopt?
So change some law other than the marriage act, to allow that. Simple.
What other rights are they lacking?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 12:24 pm
The right to get married Jimmy?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 12:24 pm
Because it’s still discrimination enshrined in law. Let individuals like yourself discriminate, but let the law have no discrimination.
If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t marry another man. But keep your social-engineering state out of it. Imagine, trying to use the state to impose a way of looking at things on everyone like you want it to!
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 12:26 pm
You mean, specifically, the right to call their civil union a marriage, don’t you, RRM. That’s what you mean, isn’t it.
So they only want a label, don’t they. All this fuss, for a label? How extraordinary. Why are they making all this fuss, for a simple label, RRM?
Why oh why are they doing that?
Ryan, I don’t recognise anything discriminatory in my position whatsoever. They can’t have the label. It’s only a label, isn’t it. If it’s only a label, then why is not letting them have it, discrimination? What precisely is discriminatory about that? This is like saying that National Women’s Hospital discriminates against men because of what it’s called. What a ridiculous argument that would be, as is yours.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 12:27 pm
If it’s just a label, where’s the problem, why not just give it to them Jimmy?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 12:28 pm
Ryan
It has never been about the love and commitment as you well know, here we go reframing yet again.
Yes it is about the gender of the people concerned.
A man and a woman.
Homosexuals may have as much commitment as heteros.
Vote:Though some of what I have read on homosexual society is that having sex on the side is acceptable as long as it is only once with that person, that doesn’t appear to be the norm in the writing I’ve read on heterosexual relationships as they usually hold children as part of their groups.
June 1st, 2012 at 12:30 pm
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
everything else is a dilution and an attack on that.
if its not between a man and a woman then all bets are off as why not two men and a woman or three women?
No it is about the next generation and bringing them through into adulthood and society.
Vote:that people get it wrong is no reason it doesn’t work.
It does.
People don’t.
June 1st, 2012 at 12:32 pm
If it’s just a label, where’s the problem, why not just give it to them Jimmy?
My position RRM is that it’s not just a label. But people like Ryan disagree that my scenario is factual. Therefore, by Ryan’s own logic, all the gays want is a label. Since it’s always better to err on the side of caution and since the gays themselves never have explained why all this fuss when its only a label, let’s not give it to them, just in case I am right and Ryan et al is wrong.
Isn’t that a sensible position RRM, given we are talking about the family unit? That’s rather important isn’t it. So my position is logical and sensible, isn’t it. Of course it is, how could you or anyone else disagree?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 12:34 pm
Ryan Sproull #
“…Imagine, trying to use the state to impose a way of looking at things on everyone like you want it to!…”
If Marriage was ONLY about adults then the government wouldn’t give a fuck about it.
Marriage is about the NEXT GENERATION of children and their WELFARE AS CHILDREN.
Stay the fuck away from our kids you SICK BASTARD !
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 12:37 pm
But gay marriage doesn’t undermine my (straight) marriage to my wife, or our care of our two children.
So it’s dishonest to say that preventing gay marriage is about protecting families and children, isn’t it Jimmy?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 12:41 pm
But gay marriage doesn’t undermine my (straight) marriage to my wife, or our care of our two children.
RRM, that’s not what I’m saying. If you don’t know what my position is, just say so, don’t try to make it up.
I have never talked about anyone’s individual marriage being threatened by this. That is not what I am saying and if you think that I am saying that you understand nothing about my position.
I am going to ask you a series of questions because I am sick of repeating myself and it takes ages to explain so you need to do the work, this time.
Do you know what a social construct is, and if so, tell me what it is so I can check your understanding. Hint: what people refer to as the “institution” of marriage is an example of a social construct.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 12:46 pm
I know what a social construct is Jimmy.
All law-abiding taxpaying citizens should be equal before the law.
Any social construct that discriminates between law-abiding taxpaying citizens is wrong and it needs to be changed.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 12:46 pm
Ryan Sproull #
The Marriage Act needs to be strengthened as kids from divorces suffer from alcohol, drugs, gambling, low education, low or no employment, jail and suicide.
Nearly ALL young men in NZ’s jails spent very little or no time at all with their natural fathers.
Child poverty in NZ has a HIGHER place in the minds of NEARLY EVERYONE than may garage !
The Marriage Act will therefor be strengthened – or kids will continue to die.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 12:54 pm
The Rabid Right and the homophobes seem to be out in force on this issue, though clearly there’s a fair bit of overlap between the two groups.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 12:58 pm
1) The institution of marriage is defined by the society that constructs it.
2) Culture evolves as do its institutions.
3) Society is pluralistic not homogeneous.
In other words marriage is indistinct no matter how you choose to frame it.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 12:59 pm
> what people refer to as the “institution” of marriage is an example of a social construct.
What % of marriages end in separation or divorce? Surely gays should be given the same opportunity to show that they can fuck up their marriages just as effectively as the rest of us.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 1:02 pm
DPF must be rubbing his hands in glee with all the discussion around this very important topic, while his beloved National Party, Key and English continue to stumble on the economic front.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 1:05 pm
OK thanks RRM, so my argument is about marriage as a social construct. This means it is not about any individual state of affairs. This is why Ryan’s point about childless married couples has no relevance. We are talking about what marriage means, as a concept, in people’s minds. Do you see the difference here and why Ryan’s point is irrelevant and why your point about your marriage is also irrelevant? If you don’t see the difference, there is no point continuing until you do because understanding this is fundamental to the whole proposition.
So how say you on this? Do you see the difference and do you agree your point and Ryan’s points are completely irrelevant to marriage as a social construct?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Yes Jimmy you’re correct about that.
I don’t believe social constructs are sacred and must remain unchanged for all time, but carry on… next question?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 1:13 pm
There are a lot of red-herrings being thrown up by RRM and Ryan.
I think you both have a misunderstanding of the difference reason based rights, often summarised as simply “rights”, and wants. The right to freedom of speech is a reason based right because you’re thoughts are arrived at solely by yourself and are your providence, by their nature you cannot force others to share them only convince them of their validity. Therefore there is no “right” to Healthcare as to receive healthcare you have to force someone else to provide it. Similarly there is no “right” to marriage for either heterosexuals or homosexuals because marriage necessitates consenting adults. Marriage is a want, some of us want to be/or are married and the question is whether the state should extend this want to homosexuals.
I’ve already detailed why marriage is a 4000 year old heterosexual institution borne out of the differences between men and women and you’ve provided no evidence of why this want of homosexuals should be granted, especially when we have already created a new institution to allow free people to legally ajoin themselves.
Any arguments about race, religion and rights are frankly irrelevant.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Ross
yeah right.
edit
Vote:do you honestly think so little of children to believe that?
June 1st, 2012 at 1:16 pm
MM, I’m pushing for it because I’m gay and, like many people my age, came to this position ourselves.
@boredboy, really? But just a few comments above you say –
I never thought too much about it before the past couple of years but now I realise the effect this exclusion has on gay people. It’s crushing.
So, you never thought about it, then all of a sudden came to the conclusion yourself and were crushed? Or could it be that the issue never arose in your mind until a small minority of activists thrust it into the public spotlight?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 1:18 pm
> you’ve provided no evidence of why this want of homosexuals should be granted
You’ve provided no evidence of why it shouldn’t be. Surely you can do better than that.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 1:20 pm
1) The institution of marriage is defined by the society that constructs it.
2) Culture evolves as do its institutions.
3) Society is pluralistic not homogeneous.
Scott Chris, oh really? It seems to me that irregardless of the society, marriage is the same. Hasn’t been redefined, and those societies that have tried seem to have fallen by the wayside. That is always the way it goes – first the morals of a society fail, before the society itself crashes and burns.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 1:20 pm
Leaping Jimmy (10,715) Says:
June 1st, 2012 at 12:32 pm
Jimmy
it’s not about a label.
It’s about dilution of marriage.
It is about destroying Father/Mother roles and societal relationships (Helen and lefties with changing 100 laws).
It is about destroying the family so that the state can be pre-eminant over all.
It is about acceptance of homosexual behaviour and choice.
It is about access to our children through adoption of “married” people.
It is about benefits monetary and otherwise that marriage brings.
no a label won’t do.
Homosexuals are just part of the mix, a sad part but just part.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 1:22 pm
“1) The institution of marriage is defined by the society that constructs it.”
True marriage is a creation ordinance and a covenant instituted and defined by God.
“2) Culture evolves as do its institutions.”
Organic evolution is one thing, but most liberals fashions, including this one, are not examples of natural social evolution, but of radical revolution foisted on society by a minority using bully tactics and the power of the State to force change.
“3) Society is pluralistic not homogeneous.”
Healthy societies are homogenous to a great degree. Pluralism exists only because Liberals have pursued a deliberate policy of social Balkanization through mass immigration and the elevation of anointed minority groups, in order to sideline the opinions of the natural majority and increase the power of the State to force radical change.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Manolo (6,519) Says:
June 1st, 2012 at 1:02 pm
I think you are a very wise man some days
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 1:29 pm
When people think of marriage as a social construct, what do they equate that with? Love? Yes. Commitment? Yes. Children? Yes. Sex?
Do people, when they think of marriage, as a social institution, equate sex with it? They don’t, do they.
Do you agree they equate all of the above to marriage, as a social construct, but not sex?
Michael, I know it’s not about a label, I was having a conversation with someone at their level of understanding. Google my previous conversations on this topic, you will see what I think is the same as what I perceive you think too.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 1:33 pm
“Families, authority, communities, and social ranks are the empirical-sociological concretization of the abstract philosophical-praxeological categories and concepts of property, production, exchange, and contract. Property and property relations do not exist apart from families and kinship relations.”
“Egalitarianism, in every form and shape, is incompatible with the idea of private property. Private property implies exclusivity, inequality, and difference. And cultural relativism is incompatible with the fundamental—-indeed foundational—-fact of families and intergenerational kinship relations. Families and kinship relations imply cultural absolutism.”
“As a result of subsidizing the malingerers, the neurotics, the careless, the alcoholics, the drug addicts, the Aids-infected, and the physically and mentally challenged through insurance regulation and compulsory health insurance, there will be more illness, malingering, neuroticism, carelessness, alcoholism, drug addiction, Aids infection, and physical and mental retardation.”
“There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.”
Quotes from Hans-Hermann Hoppe. one of the greatest intellectuals of our time.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Fletch I disagree. For instance the patriarchal nature of marriage has changed completely with laws introduced to reflect the growing political prowess of women. Not only that, marriage means different things to different societies, such as a Mormon’s polygamy or a Hindu’s arrangement and dowry.
And we live in an unprecedented era in which the majority of society seeks to tolerate and accept those with a different sexual orientation, so inevitably the concept of marriage will change to reflect that ethos.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 1:38 pm
You’ve provided no evidence of why it shouldn’t be. Surely you can do better than that.
Have you read the thread?
I’ve previously stated:
It’s important to remember that marriage predates government by at least a millenia and only within the last couple of hundred years became something codified by government, so an argument can be made whether the government even can define the institution. The “old” standard of marriage was if your neighbour deem you married and you have undergone a ceremony and signed a contract/licence then you were married. Doesn’t it annoy you that you have to go hat in hand to the government, when under the “old” system you could simply find a Church that recognises gay marriage as legitimate?
Secondly it’s important to remember why marriage originated, is a universal human institution and has remained to this day. It was large driven by parents who wanted to pick a suitable spouse for their child and to bind them together legally and financially (hence dowries) for (largely) the purpose of procreation and a forming a stable family environment. Marriage arouse from this and took it’s strength as an institution due to some fundamental, irrevocable facts:
- Men had more economic power (this is declining since industrialisation but it is a origin as they were/are physically stronger)
- Women can become pregnant, men can’t and men can leave
- Women are superior childrearers (on average, especially historically) but are largely economically powerless while childrearing
- Men whose wives had children conceived adulterously were required to take legal responsibility for the children, a way of ensuring that despite human hanky pankness, children still had a good chance at a stable childhood
So marriage was largely born out of the differences between men and women and these difference are the answer to the question, “Why should non-procreating heterosexuals be allowed to marry?”, because it’s a straight thing is the simple answer.
Finally despite the obfuscation above, communists like Saul Alinsky, et al have written extensively about the need to redefine the family as a means to advance the cause of undermining freedom.
I think creating civil unions has allowed us to maintain freedom by allowing consenting adults to legal join themselves but redefining marriage into a non-heterosexual instituion is illogical as the differences between men and women is what gave rise to it.
So there are numerous reasons not to extend this “want”:
- It arose out of the difference between men and women
- It is a 4000 year old (at least) institution that is (largely) based around joining two people for procreation in a manner that has been shown empherically to be the most stable for raising healthy members of society (this is the ideal and sadly as humans we often fall short)
- Changing foundational institutions in free societies is not something that should be entered lightly and should only be undertaken when we have evidence the change is beneficial to society, hence civil unions
- Civil unions, as a “free” scoiety we created this institution which recognises the fundamental difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships and allows free consenting people to legally adjoin themselves.
And there are others, campaigns for homosexual marriage “rights” don’t seem to have arguments beyond, “but they want it so should have”. Well the 95% – 98% of the population that is heterosexual have to ask responsibily, should we change a blatantly heterosexual institution into something completely new? Or is it more sensible to create a new institution? We went with the second one and so far no one has produced a good argument for why we should go further, beyond, “What possible harm could it do?”.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 1:40 pm
Jimmy, I was prepared to jump through your hoops for as long as it took for you to bring us to the point where I’m supposed to say OK OK I now accept the social construct for what it is, because all-hail the social construct.
But if that above is your attitude then I can’t really be fucked playing any more, goodbye. Take care the homosexuals don’t get you on your way out, perhaps you’d better keep your back to the wall.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 1:44 pm
“And we live in an unprecedented era in which the majority of society seeks to tolerate and accept those with a different sexual orientation,”
Not true. We live in an unprecedented era in which a tiny minority of homosexuals activists have been allowed to use the power of the state and bully tactics (the use of terms like bigot and homophobe to demonise those who disagree) to silence majority opinion and force their agenda onto an unwilling society. Radical change has been accomplished by using the liberal media and the state, and an unprecedented campaign of dishonest propaganda.
Also, homosexuals do not have a different “orientation”. Homosexuality is a chosen behaviour, not a state of being or an “orientation”.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 1:46 pm
While homosexual adoption will not immediately led to a lot of homosexual men adopting children as their are not many to adopt it will led to more demand like the following shows.
Where Do Politicians Stand On Polygamy?
http://bobmccoskrie.com/?p=3913
Ignoring Nature 101
http://bobmccoskrie.com/?p=3941
Lover of twins adds new twist to moral debate
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10809419
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 1:55 pm
RRM yes I thought that might happen. I do apologise, it was very condescending of me. Anyway, I was getting sick of the socratic approach anyway. It wasn’t working out.
I do realise you have probably already gone but here it is, from amalgamating previous posts over previous threads.
Marriage = family, in people’s minds. That’s why gays can’t have it. By definition, a gay relationship is not about family, it’s about sex. That’s why they can’t have it.
As I explained above, this is a social engineering exercise. It is designed to change society’s perception of “marriage” as a concept in people’s mind.
It is designed to change that concept, from an inextricable linkage between marriage = family, to a cheapened, disgusting linkage to marriage = sex. That’s what this whole global issue is all about. It is a communist social engineering ploy attacking the family unit because commies really hate the family unit. Their whole philosophy is based on destroying it and this is but another ploy in a long list of ploys designed to do this.
Communism wants to attack two social constructs in society: religions and families. This is because communism wants people to become totally dependent on the state and those two constructs provide deep support to individuals which undermine that goal. It’s easy to attack religion you just ban it which is why Russia banned the orthodox church. However you can’t ban the family unit. So you have to undermine it. One example of the way communists undermine the family unit is feminism. Feminism is a communist-created social movement. Feminists won’t admit to that, but it is.
Feminism is designed to change the role of women in society. Why is feminism anti-family? Well, who is at the centre of the family? The mother, of course. Feminism purports like all good propaganda to be pro-the subject of the attack so feminism purports to be pro-women but in reality it undermines them by attacking their ability to perform their primary role in nature which is to nurture children and communicate the culture. Why the hell do you think women are such good communicators for example? Do you think this is just a genetic accident? No of course not. Female DNA is designed specifically to facilitate their ability to communicate. There are all sorts of prongs in this attack another of them being the way society now requires two incomes just to stay afloat which prevents women from fulfilling their aforesaid role. Another prong from feminism is gay marriage. Gay rights is a feminist arm.
gay marriage is aimed at the generation born in 2050, who grow up in a world where there is no family the way we know it today. In 2050, instead of most families being what we know, most families instead consist of several siblings who each have different fathers and the mother currently lives with a man who is not the father to any one of them. This is the “normal” family then. These children from birth are taught not explicitly but just by natural absorption, that “marriage” is something you do when you care slightly more than casually about someone. But it is not a lifetime commitment, no way, it’s not even done when you want to have kids. It’s really a bit like living together, only slightly more special than that. Back in the “olden days” it used to mean something, but it doesn’t now.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Liberal Minded Kiwi (in the UK, no less)
Show me the hate. All I can see is yours, Clint.
Clint has never got over me deleting his blog from my sidebar.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 2:17 pm
twitchy-jim has finally nailed it…!
..this whole gay-thang is just another one of those bloody commie-conspiracies…!
..is there no end to their perfidy..?
..funny story..!!!..most current/ex commie-countries/regimes are homophobic…
..(i wonder where/how that fits in twitchys’ grand-plan/picture..?..
….but logic judder-bars have never been much of a barrier for him before..eh..?)
..and let us all hope for all their sakes that nobody close/offspring of twitchy…(and the other over-strident heteros(?)..)..
..grows up gay..
..eh..?
..will they don hairshirts and self-flagellate if that happens..?..
..their worst nightmare..?..
phillip ure@whoar.co.nz
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Chuck,
Lover of twins adds new twist to moral debate
lol. The reality is not quite the fantasy you see in porn.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 2:23 pm
Lee01,
Also, homosexuals do not have a different “orientation”. Homosexuality is a chosen behaviour, not a state of being or an “orientation”.
Your evidence?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Lee01,
…homosexuals activists have been allowed to use the power of the state…to silence majority opinion and force their agenda onto an unwilling society.
1. The antipathy you display towards homosexuality in not something shared by the majority
Vote:2. The state, or at least the government of the day, is elected by the majority
3. You are not being silenced as your posts clearly demonstrate
4. Nothing is being forced upon you
5. You are nuts.
June 1st, 2012 at 2:27 pm
That’s more like it Jimmy.
But I don’t share your fears about the fragility of “the family”.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Hi, Harriet. Please don’t call people names like that, and get off the computer and let a grown-up use it.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 2:49 pm
The National Women’s Hospital is not a law. If it is state-funded as a public hospital and treats only men and not women, then it is discriminatory.
You are talking about wanting there to be a law that says that this state-sanctioned legal arrangement is restricted only to heterosexual adults and denied to homosexual adults.
Whether or not you consider same-sex marriage to be like interracial marriage in terms of opposition to it (“not natural”, “redefining marriage”, etc.), if you want to know why equality proponents would not be satisfied with equal legal powers (adoption, etc.) while the law uses a different term for them, the answer to that question still lies in how you would expect interracial couples to react to being told they can have equal legal powers but their coupling will not be considered a legal marriage.
As I said, you can personally continue to consider any couple to be or not to be a marriage by your definition. The problem arises when you want your personal views to be enshrined in law.
And as I said, I would prefer the law had nothing to say on the matter, it being none of the state’s business, but if it must say something, that something must be non-discriminatory.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 3:01 pm
It is not true that a gay relationship is by definition about sex, any more than it is true that a straight relationship is about sex. A relationship, to me, is about love and commitment, though I’m aware that not everyone in this thread agrees on that point.
And there are plenty of gay people in families.
One of the strange things about this view is that you’re advocating relying on the state to tell everyone what constitutes marriage. You want the state to keep defining this legal arrangement in the way that you think it should be defined, restricting it in the way you think it should be restricted.
I think the state should stay out of it, and you want the state to be in charge of it. Are you sure you’re not part of the communist plot yourself?
Forgive the glibness, but it wouldn’t be hard to suggest that heterosexuals have done such a poor job of marriage recently (some of which in the ways you list) that it might be worth giving someone else a go at it.
I disagree that the conspiracy you fear exists. Even if it did, it’s fallacious to oppose a move towards equal rights on the grounds that it’s part of some broader slippery slope towards a nefarious end. If part of realising this communist plot was helping an old lady across the road, you wouldn’t object to helping the old lady on those grounds.
Do you think that removing restrictions on interracial marriage could have been seen as a step towards this communist goal back in the ’60s in the US? Would you have opposed those moves on those grounds then?
I really don’t think that “it’s part of a big plot” is a good enough reason to perpetuate the state imposing these restrictions. You might be a fan of state power, but I am not.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 3:04 pm
You are talking about wanting there to be a law that says that this state-sanctioned legal arrangement is restricted only to heterosexual adults and denied to homosexual adults.
So what’s wrong with that? There are many laws for different groups, aren’t there. Why can’t one group have one set of laws for its group and another group have another set of laws. As long as the rights granted by the law are the same, I cannot see how if can possibly be discriminatory in any way whatsoever. That’s the definition of discrimination, isn’t it. Different rights. So if the rights are the same, how can the law possibly be disciminatory? I repeat, if the rights are the same, how can the law possibly be disciminatory? I repeat, if the rights are the same, how can the law possibly be disciminatory? Would you like me to repeat it again?
Like I said above Ryan, if you are wrong and I am right, then it is the end of the family unit. Which is not a trivial thing. So even if you don’t think I’m right, given there is no discrimination, why not err on my side, for safety’s sake?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 3:10 pm
So Ryan, do you support group marriage? Do you support incest between contenting adults if there are no children?
Many libertarians do?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 3:12 pm
Just in case things get quiet in here – knew this was coming, but loks like it’s the system now:
If it’s imporant to her she has a democratic right to try and get a bill drawn from the ballot.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 3:19 pm
Obviously using a different term to denote one over another is not identical treatment. Certainly the picture you paint is better than most – far better than say Saudi Arabia or Iran. But the fact that the equal legal rights are named differently ends up magnifying the terminology as an embodiment of that different treatment. And it’s just not the law’s job to be a respecter of persons in this way. The state should not be dictating to people how to live.
You could predict doom from any change at all and claim that things should stay the same forever to err on safety’s side.
I err on the side of liberty and equality, for liberty and equality’s sake.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 3:23 pm
“Conscience votes give every MP the right to make their own decision, and their parties don’t dictate how they should vote.”
MPs Conscience votes are an oxymoron if I ever heard one. It is on par with them referring to each other as honourable.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Hi, Chuck.
As long as there are no tax incentives to group marriage and everyone involved is a consenting adult, it’s none of my (or the state’s) business what they do.
The notion of incest between consenting adults disgusts me, but if they are indeed consenting adults and there’s no chance of pregnancy, it’s none of my (or the state’s) business what they do. That one requires a little bit of qualification, though – the threat of people grooming children to consent once they are of an age of majority is too obvious to let pass. There’s the same threat, to a lesser degree, in siblings of differing ages.
Basically, on the question of incest, the consenting part of “consenting adults” is a far, far fuzzier area. I don’t have a clear answer, I’m sorry. I tend against it.
But group marriage, none of my business.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 3:26 pm
yes..it’s not so much a ‘conscience-vote’…
..more a bigot/not-bigot poll…
phillip ure@whoar.co.nz
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 3:32 pm
But the fact that the equal legal rights are named differently ends up magnifying the terminology as an embodiment of that different treatment.
But Ryan here you are admitting the only difference is a label. A single word. And given the catastrophic social consequences of giving gays that single word if I am right and you are wrong, why not play it safe?
It seems to me your position is the unreasonable one, not mine. You are prepared to potentially condemn millions and millions of people yet unborn to complete and utter misery, simply because you will not accept the safety position I am recommending. Which gives gays every single right they are demanding, except the label. Now how can you possibly claim that is not a reasonable solution?
..more a bigot/not-bigot poll…
phil you useless little fuck i’ve explained above my position why don’t you rip it to shreds if you can. I bet you can’t, you’re too stupid. And I’ll respond only to real actual arguments, I’m not responding to irrelevant trivia and ad homina, so if I’m silent in response to some of that, don’t assume you’ve made a winning point, you useless little fuck. Go on little man, have a go.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 3:35 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t there a prediction of the end of civilization as we knew it when the Homosexual Law Reform Bill was passed in the mid 1980s? How did that turn out then?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Leaping Jimmy,
So what’s wrong with that? There are many laws for different groups, aren’t there. Why can’t one group have one set of laws for its group and another group have another set of laws. As long as the rights granted by the law are the same, I cannot see how if can possibly be discriminatory in any way whatsoever. That’s the definition of discrimination, isn’t it. Different rights. So if the rights are the same, how can the law possibly be disciminatory? I repeat, if the rights are the same, how can the law possibly be disciminatory? I repeat, if the rights are the same, how can the law possibly be disciminatory? Would you like me to repeat it again?
If the rights are the same then what purpose is there in differentiating between the groups? It is absurd to suggest that groups can be differentiated without there being an implied purpose of treating the groups differently.
Like I said above Ryan, if you are wrong and I am right, then it is the end of the family unit. Which is not a trivial thing. So even if you don’t think I’m right, given there is no discrimination, why not err on my side, for safety’s sake?
You really think gays being treated equally under the law is the end of the family unit? Are you aware how stupid that sounds? I repeat, are you aware how stupid that sounds?
If gay marriage is recognized, gays will marry. Big fucking deal. All this pretentious waffling about the “family unit” is little more than inane nonsense proffered by the terminally retarded.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t there a prediction of the end of civilization as we knew it when the Homosexual Law Reform Bill was passed in the mid 1980s? How did that turn out then?
I wouldn’t know ross, I didn’t predict that then. As I recall, that was “normal” Norm Jones saying that all of a sudden, everyone would want to run around and start bumming each other. I never thought that was going to happen, and it didn’t. So I was right back in 1984 as well, wasn’t I.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 3:39 pm
> it’s not so much a ‘conscience-vote’…more a bigot/not-bigot poll
Not far from the truth. Will be interesting to see which way the PM goes when the time comes. I expect he’ll default to his typical position of voting against the Bill.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 3:42 pm
If the rights are the same then what purpose is there in differentiating between the groups?
Weihana, I’ve explained why above.
You really think gays being treated equally under the law is the end of the family unit?
If you read what I’ve been saying, I’m for equal treatment. So no, I don’t think that. Why would you think I would ever be for such a thing? Don’t you have any idea what sort of person I am having read my posts over the years? All I’m saying is they can’t have the label. They can call it gay whatever, they just can’t call it marriage. Since having a label is not a right, I fail to see how it is discrimination, in any way. I repeat, I fail to blah blah blah.
It is a big fucking deal. I may be wrong, I accept that, but if I’m right, it’s a fucking massive deal. And since it’s only a label, a mere word, why not go my way?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 3:43 pm
Chuck,
…do you support group marriage?
Yep
Do you support incest between contenting adults if there are no children?
Yep
Note, I have taken the word “support” to mean “tolerate” just as I would tolerate a person who wanted to eat dog shit though I wouldn’t advocate it.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Leaping Jimmy,
Forgive me. This thread has already been populated by a ton of posts from fruitcakes which I can’t be bothered scrolling through.
As for “it’s just a label”, well you know “nigger” is just a label too. Labels have meaning and consequences.
There’s two possibilities here.. either the label marriage means nothing and is of no consequence in which case there’s no reason to deny it to gays, or it does have significance and results in different treatment in which case you are being disingenuous when you say you are for equal treatment.
I’m of the opinion that the label does have meaning. It has meaning in the sense that denying it to gays promotes the notion that gays are of a lower status of human being than the rest of us. It is an abhorrent attitude that pervades society and often makes life quite hellish for gays who like every normal human being want to fit into society yet are constantly the victim of social exclusion because of what they are.
If you as an individual want to promote this attitude then that’s your right, but the government shouldn’t be a part of it because the government is tasked with the job of ensuring we are all equal before the law and it cannot do that properly if it is, on the one hand, holding the view that gays hold a lesser status in society than everyone else.
It would be the same if the government gave a different label to interracial marriage or inter-religious marriage etc.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 4:04 pm
Leaping Jimmy,
…And given the catastrophic social consequences of giving gays that single word if I am right and you are wrong, why not play it safe?
Because the notion that catastrophic consequences will ensue is moronic, while the reality of anti-gay discrimination and social exclusion are very real problems that should be addressed, not simply by government, but by the people themselves. After all, the government cannot do that much, it is the people that must change their ignorant and prejudiced attitudes. But at the very least the government should not endorse the notion that gays are of a lesser status by employing discriminatory labels.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Weihana, thanks for you honest answer. I will be interested what Ryan’s views are if he has any.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 4:14 pm
As I said, there’s a lot going into that label. There’s a clear message: “The law may give you the same rights, but it calls you a different name.” It’s not the law’s place to make these kinds of declarations, and it’s not the state’s place to be enforcing your labels on the whole country. You’re free to call something marriage or not, but once it’s a legal matter, the law must err on the side of equality and non-discrimination.
Keeping things the same might condemn millions and millions of people yet unborn to complete and utter misery, LJ. Is that a risk you really want to take?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 4:15 pm
Answered you almost an hour ago, bud.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Weihana, I am not saying it’s only a label, the gays and their useful idiot supporters here, are saying it’s only a label.
I do not think it is trivial, because I know propaganda. And I know how labels work in propaganda. Labels are critical in propaganda, that is why I know it is important. In commerce it is called branding and brands are valued at billions of dollars just for the concept of the brand. That is how important it is.
However everyone else here is saying, it’s trivial, it doesn’t matter, let the gays have the label of marriage for free, because it doesn’t matter. I know it does matter and I know why. The rest of the people here who are saying that it’s trivial so give it to him, do not understand how propaganda works. But I do.
Now my argument is, the gays are saying it’s not important as well. This is because they don’t want to let people know it’s the label they really want and need, they can’t do what they want to do, without it. (When I say “the gays” I’m referring to the organisers of this campaign not your average gay on the street. Those gays are only useful idiots like every single one of their supporters gay or straight on this issue, useful idiots all.) But the organisers behind this campaign, they know how important the label is. Like I said, it won’t work unless they get the label.
Just like a branding campaign, they need the pavlovian association to generate the social change they want. It has to be done on a subconscious level. If people are conscious of it it cannot be done, just like building a brand is done on a subconscious level as well. And if they don’t get the marriage label, people cannot and will not be fooled into subconsciously conflating gays with family, so it won’t work.
But you see the organisers of the campaign will not and cannot admit they need the label because that blows their cover, so they pretend it’s all about discwimination. And that’s what I’ve been asking all along. How can it possibly be discrimination in any form of the meaning of that word, if gays have every single right under the sun that married people have, except for the label? (If it really is only a label. But that’s another story, isn’t it.) But the gays are saying it is and the useful idiots are saying it is as well. So fine, if it’s only a fucking label then they don’t need to have it, do they. That’s what I’m saying. (I’m not saying it’s only a label, but they are, so hold them to their word and tell them righto then, it’s only a word, so it’s doesn’t matter, does it.) End of story.
Let them adopt, let them have civil union rights which are exactly the same in every single way to those rights enjoyed by married hetero couples. How is that discrimination in any possible way?
Because the notion that catastrophic consequences will ensue is moronic
And BTW, if branding doesn’t work, in terms of changing behaviour, why the fuck is billions if not trillions spent on advertising every single year? Of course it works. And like I said this morning, if the label wasn’t important to the gays as in, the label is the entire whole point of this campaign, why the fuck are such massive global resources being devoted to getting it. Why doesn’t this FACT give anyone in the useful idiot brigade pause for thought? What the fuck is wrong with your heads for those in this brigade, that you can’t grasp the significance of that simple fucking unanswered question?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 4:40 pm
Fletch:anyone who thinks that sodomy is equivalent to actual sexual intercourse (coitus) needs their head examined. How is it in any way the same?
Gay men physically enjoy sodomy.
The anus is not a sexual organ – it is a sewer line for bodily waste.
And so is the penis.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 4:42 pm
Keeping things the same might condemn millions and millions of people yet unborn to complete and utter misery, LJ. Is that a risk you really want to take?
Ryan, you’re asking me to chose between the destruction of the institution which has supported and nurtured civilisation and 2% of the population who might suffer nothing more than slightly hurt feelings.
Er.
Gee.
Which way would you go.
This requires some careful thought doesn’t it.
Let’s see.
Hmmm.
What a toughy.
On the one hand, I’d really hate to destroy civilisation. OTOH, it’s a shame to hurt the feelings of 2% of the population. Not that they suffer anything actual, just a slightly colder tummy than normal, for a short time until they get over it and start enjoying all the legal benefits of their civil union.
Er.
Crikey Ryan. See, this is what politicians are paid huge money for. But I’m not one of those. What a spot you have put me into.
Um. Ah. Fuck it.
OK, I go for hurting gays feelings and not destroying civilisation.
Was that the right answer?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 4:44 pm
Andrei:Why is it universal throughout history and the world today that there arose an institution whereby people of one gender were bonded with people of the opposite gender in a publicly acknowledge way?
It isn’t universal throughout history and the world today. Gay marriage has existed in societies in the past and there is at least one society still around today in SW china that doesn’t have marriage.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 4:47 pm
Fletch:In reality, homosexuality is nothing more than same-gender conduct among people who are innately and unchangeably heterosexual.
You just don’t get it do you? Gay people are not secretly heterosexual. Homosexuality is innate.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 4:48 pm
“Answered you almost an hour ago, bud.”
Thanks, I missed that one.
I wonder if I will get an answer from Louisa Wall.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 4:50 pm
As I’ve said, it’s not destroying the institution, it’s removing a discriminatory legal restriction.
Equality’s not going to destroy civilisation, LJ. Marriage will keep being what it already is – a variety of cultural institutions, a legal arrangement, etc. Straight marriages will not disappear, because straight people will not stop falling in love with each other and committing themselves to each other.
You know, if the discriminatory law continues, we risk sending a message to the next generation that marriage is an archaic religious institution that cannot admit the reality of gay consenting adults falling in love and committing themselves to each other. The disillusionment could cause whole generations of straight people to disregard marriage entirely, dismissing it as a relic of a discriminatory past, inseparably linked with pointless prejudice against the gay people they see in their communities.
As a result of legal marriage remaining discriminatory and not being amended to include all adult New Zealanders, we could see it die out entirely.
Is that a risk you want to take?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 4:55 pm
Fletch:I don’t see animals committing sodomy, do you? I guess they instinctively know how to copulate.
In fact homosexuality has been observed in a number of animals. About 8% of sheep are gay: story.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 4:57 pm
Chuck:Men who abuse boys are homosexuals. Homosexual men make up about 2% of the male population yet there are nearly as many boys sexually abused as girls mainly due to homosexual offending.
Same-sex behavior isn’t the same thing as homosexuality. I seem to recall somewhere that most men who sexually abuse boys were actually heterosexual.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 4:58 pm
Leaping Jimmy,
…gays have every single right under the sun that married people have, except…
The above excerpt would constitute the gaping hole in your argument. “Equal except” is an oxymoron.
I agree with you that the label has significance but not in the sense that it is some vital safeguard of the “family unit” or other such meaningless waffle. It’s significance is the fact that it symbolizes a social clash between liberal tolerance of homosexuality and the superstitious neanderthals who regard it as sin and evil despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that sexual orientation is innate and unchangeable and despite the fact that there is no inherent harm to other people from homosexual behaviour and relationships. On the one hand, a victory for anti-gay marriage advocates symbolizes the attitude that gays are inferior. On the other hand, a victory for gay marriage advocates symbolizes the attitude that they are equal.
I agree that gays want social change and the word marriage is an instrument of the change they seek. But their goals are laudable. Their goal is social acceptance and inclusion. Their goal is for the next gay kid not to have to suffer the rejection of their family, the exclusion of their peers and the torment of bullies who mirror the ignorance and prejudices of their parents. Their goals are the same goals as various groups before them including minorities who suffered under a stigma against interracial marriage, or interfaith marriage etc.
We can’t expect every individual to be understanding but at the very least the government should not endorse their ignorance by accepting a different label with the implication that one group is inferior to the other in terms of their relationship and their social standing.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 5:09 pm
Ryan and Weihana, neither of you see the future I see for the family.
Can I please ask, if you did see the following, would you still hold to your positions or would you concede that my approach was reasonable. I am not asking you to concede anything, I am just asking you to give a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question. The question is, what if this was 2050 and the below, was actually a fact of life?
—
In 2050, instead of most families being what we know, most families instead consist of several siblings who each have different fathers and the mother currently lives with a man who is not the father to any one of them. This is the “normal” family then. These children from birth are taught not explicitly but just by natural absorption, that “marriage” is something you do when you care slightly more than casually about someone. But it is not a lifetime commitment, no way, it’s not even done when you want to have kids. It’s really a bit like living together, only slightly more special than that. Back in the “olden days” it used to mean something, but it doesn’t now.
—
So if you knew, not thought, but knew, that this would happen to the average family in 2050, would you be on my side now, today, or would you still hold your respective views?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 5:09 pm
Leaping Jimmy,
Ryan, you’re asking me to chose between the destruction of the institution which has supported and nurtured civilisation…
Bollocks. Our civilization is what it is because of democracy, the freedom to dissent, scientific progress and industrialization.
The tendency to love and support ones family, of which the “institution” of marriage has grown out of, is innate (in most people at least). We could be just as loving and just as caring and living in the dark ages. Of course if you ask Lee01, life doesn’t get any better than the dark ages!
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 5:14 pm
LJ:Therefore, ergo, the only possible conclusion one can make from this data, using logic, is that a gay relationship is not natural. That’s the law of nature. Sorry, it is. If it wasn’t unnatural, then the species would be able to procreate since that is the purpose of the law of nature. That’s what nature does. But if every single member of any given species was gay, nature would eliminate it. Therefore, whether or not you like it, the only possible conclusion is that a gay relationship is not natural.
There is absolutely no logic in there at all Reid. People with severe autism don’t breed. If everybody was severely autistic then the species would die out. By your attempt at logic it would supposedly follow that autism wasn’t natural, and that if it was it would die out. But autism is genetic and it doesn’t die out.
Similarly, your argument would imply that sterility couldn’t be natural. After all if everybody was sterile then the species would die out. And yet sterility is natural and has a known genetic basis in some cases.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 5:16 pm
Leaping Jimmy,
The absurdity in your argument is that you somehow believe that if gays get married it demeans the value of being married and somehow straight couples are no longer going to care for one another. There are such grand leaps in logic that it is difficult to know where to begin in deconstructing this web of nonsense that you have created for yourself.
Maybe you should look at it this way. Imagine you were in 1860 and someone said “Imagine if you could travel to the year 2012 and black men were marrying white women.” Would you still be in favour of ending slavery?
Anyhoo I think I’ve said all I can on the subject.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 5:16 pm
“..So if you knew, not thought, but knew, that this would happen to the average family in 2050..”
wow..!..you gotta get a special souffle-award for that purler…
..what drugs are you currently taking..?
phillip ure@whoar.co.nz
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 5:17 pm
“Same-sex behavior isn’t the same thing as homosexuality. I seem to recall somewhere that most men who sexually abuse boys were actually heterosexual.”
chiz, I have heard this spin before. Let me ask you a few questions.
If a adult male has sex with a 16 year old boy is a homosexual?
How about 15, 14, 13 or 12?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 5:20 pm
No. My view is that the state should not be telling people how to live. Whether or not I consider the outcome of people making their own choices about how they live desirable has no bearing on that.
It is not my place to force people to live one way or another.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 5:22 pm
Lee01:Homosexuality is a chosen behaviour, not a state of being or an “orientation”.
Nope. Homosexuality is not chosen. The evidence is quite clear that it is biological in origin.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 5:22 pm
Did anyone notice that that 5yo child Raurangi Marino raped and bashed was a little GIRL?
Therefore there appears to be a strong link between heterosexuals and child abuse…
Sorry, you can’t have it both ways!
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 5:24 pm
Chuck:If a adult male has sex with a 16 year old boy is a homosexual?
Age has nothing to do with it. If a heterosexual male chooses to have sex with a man he is still heterosexual, not bisexual or gay. If a gay man chooses to have sex with a woman, he is still gay.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 5:27 pm
chiz.
Que?
That was total logic. You clearly don’t approve of it. But this disapproval chiz does not make any difference to the logicality or otherwise.
Species have diseases happening all the time. Sometimes these diseases last for millions of years before evolution works them out. The more sophisticated the organism the longer it normally takes to work it out of the gene pool.
Since the gene pool is all about producing healthier and healthier organisms capable of greater and greater reproductive feats, then why pray tell is my argument in that earlier post illogical in any way. People like you may not like it, possibly you cannot even isolate the logic because you conflate the fact that since my logic is condemning the gay lifestyle therefore it isn’t logic at all, but I can’t help that.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 5:28 pm
chiz, interesting. Let us see how many agree with you.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 5:37 pm
That old chestnut. We’re all just helpless victims of biology. Tossed and gored by life and robbed of choice. It’s the liberal’s usual place retreat when any accountability for actions is requested.
For the record, I have never met a gay worman who claims to have that sexual orientation by anything other than choice. Kudos for their honesty.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Thanks Ryan for at least answering.
Weihana @5:16 I’ve explained in detail above but you say you can’t be arsed looking at it. Fine. But please don’t then allege I’m leaping to something I haven’t already explained. FFS.
All I can say is, what I said in my 5:09 is the reason the gays are conducting a global campaign with the massive media, political and financial resources that entails. Why the fuck do you think those resources are being engaged if something important was not at stake. And if the objective is not what I outlined in my 5:09 then what pray tell in your opinion is it? And please don’t pretend this is all just a spontaneous movement that just happened. For as I said at the outset this morning, how come it’s happening simultaneously across all the western countries and nowhere else. Is that just a coincidence? Of course it is. D’oh.
Ryan: No. My view is that the state should not be telling people how to live.
Ryan are you a fan of the family as a social construct? Do you think it’s a good thing or a bad thing? If I could possibly anticipate you and imagine you think it is a good thing, you are a fan, then why not and what is wrong with using the resources of the state to support it and prevent the undermining of it?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 5:39 pm
Chuck that’s how its defined. Sexual orientation is about who you are attracted to, not who you have sex with. These two things usually coincide but not always.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 5:43 pm
If we’re including any consenting adults then let’s invite more to join the party. Polygamy? That’s a given. What about non-biological siblings? Surely. Infertile blood siblings? Can’t see the harm in that.
Andrei used the example of his cat. Its a non-consenting adult apparently. But why discriminate against him just because its a cat? It may well be consenting. In the absence of an obvious objection I’ll take it as agreeing to the proposal.
After all, if it doesn’t affect my own marriage then why is there any concern? Isn’t that the benchmark for acceptability?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 5:44 pm
LJ:That was total logic.
It was totally illogical. You could benefit from learning some biology some time.
Species have diseases happening all the time.
I wasn’t talking about diseases. Autism is genetic, yet it is not dying out. That contradicts you.
then why pray tell is my argument in that earlier post illogical in any way.
Because it is well established in biology and has been for decades that mutations that reduce the reproductive fertility of individuals can nevertheless become well established, and indeed, even fixed, in a population. Learn some biology sometime.
The fact that gay people are less likely to have children does not automatically imply by itself that homosexuality would die out.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 5:47 pm
Can’t see why conservatives won’t show a little initiative and create their own marriage brand exclusive to heterosexual monogamous couples.
Could make a mint in licence fees.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 5:48 pm
Silly me, I always thought it you were a male and took it up the arse or sucked someone’s dick you were either a homosexual or a bisexual.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 5:49 pm
chuck ‘groin’ bird…
phillip ure@whoar.co.nz
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 5:49 pm
“The fact that gay people are less likely to have children does not automatically imply by itself that homosexuality would die out.”
That is for sure. They recruit not reproduce.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 5:49 pm
Finally you admit that you’re silly.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 5:51 pm
Chuck:They recruit not reproduce.
No they don’t chuck. Sexual orientation is biological.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 5:53 pm
Funnily enough we are, apparently, all quite happy with the state dictating how much of my earnings we should surrender in the form or tax, how fast we can drive, what are acceptable building materials, which are approved pharmaceuticals, the type of pets we can own, the times and places we can purchase alcohol, etc. But any suggestion that the state may outline acceptable family structure is met with outrage. It’s the hypocritical confluence of socialism and libertarianism.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 6:04 pm
chiz are you suggesting gayness is a wonder of nature and this is what nature should do more of?
If so, why?
How does gayness help propagation of the species? Surely this is nature’s purpose.
So what’s your point?
??
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 6:46 pm
Ryah sproull #
“….No. My view is that the state should not be telling people how to live. Whether or not I consider the outcome of people making their own choices about how they live desirable has no bearing on that.
It is not my place to force people to live one way or another….’
The state is not forcing you to be homosexual or hetrosexual nor is it telling you that you CAN’T get Married.
The STATE is OFFERING YOU the CHOICES that YOU SEEK !
Stay away from our children as you appear to have a fixation with gays[those who CHOOSE not to procreate] being involved in an institution that is PRIMARILY about the welfare of CHILDREN and THEIR NATURAL PARENTS.
PS.
Before you find exceptions within Marriage concerning those who choose NOT to procreate or CAN’T- give thought to the fact that EXCEPTIONS are MOSTLY to do with MEDICAL reasons [women and mean who NATURALLY can't procreate after NATURALLY TRYING TO].
And the very very FEW who CHOOSE not to procreate, you will find, don’t understand in full the relationship between Marriage AND society and the current and future generations.
Or in other words – gays are looking pretty stupid if they think that an arguement for them to have the right to get married, is BASED on the DECISIONS of a very very – FEW IGNORANT PEOPLE !
Virtually all the arguements for gay Marriage are tedious.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 7:02 pm
We who procreate decide on the welfare of our children – this is not a gay issue.
We also, through educating our children, help decide the welfare of gays in the next generations, as gay bashings are generally NOT committed by those who grew up under the shelter of Marriage. It is mostly committed by those who were bought up in de-facto relationships or none at all. This matter is also not directly a gay issue as today’s gays simply die off[they don't procreate].However, it is indirectly a gay issue IF today’s gays are concerned about the welfare of gays in the next generation.
And IF they are concerned, then the evidence shows clearly that they are best to avoid – fucking with Marriage !
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 7:03 pm
The bottom line is that raising children is an economic activity, a vital economic activity essential to the future well being of our society, which is why reproductive couples were in a more sensible age encouraged and supported by the State.
In this age of its all about me and my desires this is all but forgotten.
Silly thing is it is all unravelling, there are not enough young and the population is aging – the crunch is not far off with this when the burden of caring for the aged will fall upon too few young.
But what the hell
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 7:08 pm
A truely liberal government would strengthen the Marriage act so that individuals who make the SERIOUS choice to procreate can then complete the job properly, without hinderance from those who choose not to procreate or hinderance from the State itself !
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 7:17 pm
Jesus Harriet, what an awful thing to say to a man. What a nasty person you are.
And not only that, you’re saying it to Ryan Sproull one of the most mild mannered and reasonable commenters on kiwiblog.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 8:00 pm
Scott Chris #
Gays beliitle their own community, as fully grown men and women run up and down the street near naked.They state endlessly in the media “I’m gay” which is nothing more than saying “My doodle is differant ” – an act that parents stop 3-5 yrld boys from repeating.An act, that if generally ignored, is grown out of by children.Gays have no need to behave in this way publicly as homosexuality has been legalised and like everyone else in society can partake in sex in it’s appropriate place – the bedroom.
We all know that gays are differant when it comes to sex, a matter which by and large in the hetrosexual community is a private one and left to where it is usually performed, in the bedroom.Gays and their supporters on the otherhand abandon this act of privacy and seem to think that a muture populace should take the act of sex and make it by and large a public matter.One that needs to be endlessly talked about and studied, with the results on the front pages of news papers. Well, they can.
But Marriage is not an act of sex but an act of procreation – between only two people.It is not by and large a public matter that needs ‘clarification’ that differs largely from what it has always been.And it certainly does not involve those who are gay.Those who choose not to procreate.Those who mostly, really, have a limited personal influence on future generations.
Marriage exists to protect children and their natural parents in that natural state.
Yes I agree, I have been nasty towards Ryan Spoull, and I apoligize, however, I find his arguements for gay marriage very immature and tedious at best.He like others, simply find exceptions on Marriage and those who enter into it [like divorce or bad parenting] and then argue that that is good enough reason for gays to get Married.
What, like failure ?
Gay progressiveness does nothing for itself if it acts in this way. I stand up for gay progressivness more than Ryan does because I’m saying that gays cannot legitimize themselves on the grounds of other people failing.Gays should respect themselves more.
Ryan may be kind of heart[I have no idea but I believe what you say] but I think he is somewhat confused about Marriage[when it's properly performed] and it’s place in society.Just because some in society have choosen to wilfully denigrate Marriage in the last 3-4 decades does not then mean that it is ruined. Far from it.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 8:17 pm
Marriage exists to protect children and their natural parents in that natural state.
It is not gays who will destroy marriage and the ‘basic family unit’
it is Government agencies and policies
As referred to in General Debate, yesterday and again today –
Vote:The case of 14 year old ‘Jade’
CYF, Rosa Trust Counselling, an Albany Church, Youthlaw, two Schools, & Family Court endorse under-age sex with a minor (Close Up, 30/5/12)
– http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/shock-after-counsellor-approves-underage-relationship-4904575
– http://tvnz.co.nz/close-up/2012-05-30-video-4904587
June 1st, 2012 at 8:27 pm
Nope. Homosexuality is not chosen. The evidence is quite clear that it is biological in origin.
Says you. Only, the onus is on them to prove it, and they can’t.
Vote:If it was biological, then there would be biological differences between a straight man and a gay man, and there are not. As I said, they are both innately heterosexual physiologically.
June 1st, 2012 at 8:30 pm
Here are some things Pope Benedict had to say on ecology and man.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 8:48 pm
LJ:are you suggesting gayness is a wonder of nature and this is what nature should do more of?
Homosexuality occurs in nature. I don’t see why you use the word ‘wonder’ or seem to think that I’m suggesting that there should be more of it.
If so, why?
I’m simply pointing out that your arguments don’t work.
How does gayness help propagation of the species? Surely this is nature’s purpose.
Autism is genetic. How does autism help the propagation of the species?
In the case of homosexuality there are a number of models for how it might be beneficial to a species and we don’t know which one of those, or some other reason, is the relevant explanation. We do know empirically that the mothers of gay men tend to be more fecund and its possible that this is the reason why homosexuality, in men, persists.
So what’s your point?
My point is that your arguments are biologically naive.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 8:53 pm
Fletch:Says you. Only, the onus is on them to prove it, and they can’t.
They have proved it. There have been a number of studies showing this and I’ve even mentioned some of them in these debates. Perhaps you pay attention.
If it was biological, then there would be biological differences between a straight man and a gay man, and there are not. As I said, they are both innately heterosexual physiologically.
Biological differences between straight men and gay men have been found. Biological differences between straight women and gay women have also been found. Biological differences between straight rams and gay rams have also been found.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 10:34 pm
Well we have established a few things from this. The christians on this thread got absolutely slammed on the whole “a marriage is purely for procreation” issue. They equate gay marriage to paedophilia, child abuse, marrying ones pets and the breakdown of all social society.
Pretty sure they also used these excuses when homosexuality was legalised as well.
Fletch – I am pretty sure Pope Benedict also said plenty to his own flock about molesting children, torture, abuse of vulnerable adults incl elderly and handicapped people and women. Indeed Pope John Paul was very apologetic about the misdeeds of the church towards women.
An NBC report on celibacy and the clergy found that ‘anywhere from 20 percent to 58 percent of Catholic clergy have a homosexual orientation. Other studies find that approximately half of American priests and seminarians are homosexually oriented. Sociologist James G. Wolf in his book Gay Priests concluded that 48.5 percent of priests and 55.1 percent of seminarians were gay. The percentage appears to be highest among priests under forty years of age. Moreover, the percentage of gay men among religious congregations of priests is believed to be even higher.[The Changing Face of the Priesthood, Fr. Donald B. Cozzens; Copyright 2000 by the Order of St. Benedict]
What we don’t comprehend is that you and your ilk preach (and preach) about loving one another, all being sinners, living a good life to go to heaven and yet you’ve just wasted many hours telling us that millions of people around the world are indeed filthy unnatural subhumans and that gay marriage between two loving people is akin to marrying a cat.
No wonder church numbers are dropping. I would hope that churches lose their tax free status sooner rather than later too.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 10:58 pm
Biological differences between straight men and gay men have been found. Biological differences between straight women and gay women have also been found. Biological differences between straight rams and gay rams have also been found.
Sorry, I do not believe it.
And what of the gays who go on to become straight? Such as Charlene Cothran and Michael Glatze.
The best you could probably say is that you think some gayness might be innate (and I don’t even believe that). As I’ve said before, Dr Elizabeth Wells from Otago has shown that those who identify as gay or bisexual are more than 3 times as likely to have been abused as children.
Also, if homosexuality is an orientation, then so is paedophilia and bestiality etc. If so, then we are harassing paedophiles for what is their orientation – is that fair?
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 11:04 pm
Liberal Minded Kiwi, I don’t believe your stats either – sounds made up to me.
To see how the Left likes to misrepresent numbers, read this article – http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/9548/
Of all those priests who had allegations made against them in the US from 1950 to 2002, six percent (of those who had allegations made against them) were officially charged – about 252 convictions in 52 years.
Vote:June 1st, 2012 at 11:17 pm
And 15 hours later I come back to my original post.
Posts here by Chucky, Andrei and Fletch were nothing but a discharge of ignorance, prejudice and an irrational fear and hatred of homosexuals. It all boils down to “gay people are icky”
It’s nearly funny to see that the same sort of people arguing the with same sort of arguments against gay marriage as once they argued against interracial marriage. It’s against god’s will, bad for the children, unnatural, it’s not discrimination as they are free to marry amongst themselves, etc., etc. And all it boiled down to was “People not like us are icky”
And they will be on the same side of history. People will look back on them and shake their heads and say “What were they thinking?”
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 12:16 am
You just can help yourself, can you?
Regardless whether or not paedophilia is an orientation, why is it so difficult for you to comprehend that there is a difference between the actions of two consenting loving adults and the raping and abuse of children?
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 1:34 am
I have to say that the amount of sexual abuse covering up that Fletch is engaging in is probably the most disturbing part of this thread.
That and the fact he equates homosexuality with paedophilia and ignores science fact that indeed homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom and believes there is no difference between a loving act between two consenting adults and forced sex between an adult and a minor.
You don’t believe my stats and I most certainly not believe yours. The book I referred you to by Father Cozzens a Catholic seminary president states quite clearly is a proliferation of homosexuality in the Catholic church and his fears from this. Note – he’s on your side.
What is wrong with loving, committed couples being allowed to marry? You go out of your way to condemn non law breaking homosexuals, but you have nothing to say about the “showmances”, short term weddings, and divorce that straight couples do every single day.
Face it. You’re ugly hatful bigots.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 4:16 am
In the end, whether or not gays can marry does not effect an individual’s life in the slightest.
I note that gays are often pretty hard working and well educated, if I might make a positive generalisation.
Gay people are more honest about their sexuality then many straight people. My best friend who is a lesbian taught me an awful lot about the world
Me and her together make for a lethal set of two mutually supporting wings of a grand enterprise to assault the world of sexual and social incompetence that is ruining the lives of single women everywhere 
The gay men that I know, to a man, are all ethical people, who are well educated as I say, and hard working. They certainly can dish the odd coquettish put-down, but again that is something to learn from. Gay men have taught me a lot about friendship with women, and about different emphasis in life.
I will say that my gay hombres have veeeeery healthy sex drives that aren’t always healthy for them or their community, but if anything I admire them for their energy levels in being able to sustain that, and also be productive people with mothers who still love them…
As a Catholic it’s hard to reconcile the Churches position on this. I myself have no reasonable basis to deny gay’s marriage, or the ability to adopt children. Notwithstanding biological motivations, gay people in my experience are far better qualified to parent children then many of the cretins that make up NZ’s population.
Gay parents of adopted babies will no doubt normalise homosexuality for their children, and I suspect that it will lead to experimentation given this normative environment. But I also think that in the end children and individuals will hold true to their nature and gay parents are well aware of the pitfalls within their community and the community at large.
Given my upbringing it’s hard for me to move aside from the paradigm of marriage = sacrament = woman and man, and civil unions provide all the legal rights of marriage. However, I think the world is a richer place for the homosexual hombres who reside in it, and they should be able to marry to subsequently divorce and halve each others assets and screw up their children and be uncool parents just like the rest of the population.
Harriet the number of creepy Christian couples I’ve seen marry as virgins, to subsequently divorce having discovered reality, has provided me a lot of amusement and pause. Christianity is wonderful, but kids definitely should try before they buy. My god, a poor woman married to some quivering idiot who has no idea what he is doing, the poor thing, I just feel sorry for these women.
That being said, I don’t believe if you oppose gay marriage you are a homophobe – that label is far too easily tossed around. I think though I can’t rob my friends of the opportunity to get married and divorce, and to have the minuscule chance as Andrew Geddis points out of adopting babies.
Finally, all being said, I still think that the ideal home, is one that is a nuclear family, with a mother, and a father, in a committed marriage. That does not make me a homophobe. But I still think children who are with two committed same sex individuals who work and pay taxes and hate bludgers and shirkers, and expect good marks, and treat kids with respect and authority are far better off then being wards of the state or aborted.
I am not certain that children have a ‘right’ to a mum and a dad. Life isn’t so simple. Like many things it’s a matter of luck. Too many kids have one, or effectively neither as both are cretins who no doubt vote labour.
There, that is my position on gay marriage and adoption, and it was a long evolution for me to take given my upbringing, but that is what it is. When I become a parent, we shall see if it perhaps evolves back to what it was when I was a child.
Good day.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 5:08 am
Unfortunately for Fletch, homosexuals are not the only ones who lust for underage unwilling victims..
http://newsone.com/2018409/robert-van-handel-priest-catholic-sex-abuse
A fine upstanding Catholic man indeed.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 8:43 am
“homosexuals are not the only ones who lust for underage unwilling victims.”
And you are going to try and tell me this guy is not a homosexual.
I also note that he claims to be abused by a homosexual priest himself at 15. Note I say claims. However, a lot of homosexual paedophiles have been sexually abused themselves.
It is good to see the Herald has taken a sensible stance on this issue.
Gay adoption a step too far
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10810169
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 9:52 am
Chuck Bird (2,257) Says:
June 1st, 2012 at 5:48 pm
Silly me, I always thought it you were a male and took it up the arse or sucked someone’s dick you were either a homosexual or a bisexual.
You are very silly indeed. Prisoners who rape other prisoners are generally not homosexual any more than a teenage boy’s sexual orientation is defined by the box of tissues he ejaculates into. Sexual orientation is what you are attracted to, it is not simply what is convenient as a physical object. Likewise there are plenty of gay men who have sex with women and reproduce but they are nevertheless queer as hell.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 10:07 am
Chuck,
It is quite ironic that you link to someone who is quite happy with gay marriage – it is gay adoption he sees as a bridge to far for him.
How sad then that he uses a completely specious argument as the bedrock against gay adoption – that children will be teased or bullied at school when the other kids find out they have ‘two dads’ or ‘two mums’. Specious because that teasing, to the extent it will happen, will still occur in the absence of gay adoption, as the children will still be parented by a same-sex couple and the legal status as joint adoptive parents will have absolutely no bearing on other children teasing them whatsoever.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 10:31 am
It is funny to bring up the adoption thing again. I linked to a story a few days ago:
Vote:‘Linda-Jean Kenix’s biological son Grady, 4, was born in the United States and legally adopted by Jennifer Kenix. However, the pair’s second child, Zoey, 3, was born in New Zealand to Jennifer, meaning Linda-Jean Kenix could not adopt her.’
No one was able to give any explanation as to why Linda-Jean Kenix should be prevented from adopting her partner’s child.
Another thing that continues to bug me about the whole marriage things is the rationale for the government regulating personal relationships at all. Do we really need a law to govern what a marriage is?
June 2nd, 2012 at 10:33 am
“Gay marriage is based on gay “sex”, and anyone who thinks that sodomy is equivalent to actual sexual intercourse (coitus) needs their head examined. How is it in any way the same? The anus is not a sexual organ – it is a sewer line for bodily waste.”
This is the entire debate from the fundies
Funny to me and most others gay does not mean anal sex
only from the homophobic fundie community would you get such a sexist stand point
according to the fundies there are no gay woman only filthy butt fuckers
Of which the Church is acknowledged to have an over representation within the preacher community-
The only way to debate with the poor fundie sods is to ridicule their blatant sexism and attack the foundation of their perversion, Christianity.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 10:40 am
“It is quite ironic that you link to someone who is quite happy with gay marriage – it is gay adoption he sees as a bridge to far for him.”
One of my main concerns about homosexual marriage is that it will lead to homosexual adoption as well as surrogacy. My other concern is that it is just another attempt top normalise something that is harmful to society.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 10:41 am
“Gay marriage is based on gay “sex””
Surely the point is that it is nothing of Fletch’s damn business what other people’s marriages are based on.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 10:48 am
Sorry chuck don’t take that personally this time. I did not notice who was responsible for the post. It just seemed to be an encapsulation of the content of most of the anti gay lobby’s comments.
Vote:Sexist comments that have been a feature of the debates on the rights of the homosexual community
June 2nd, 2012 at 10:55 am
Griff why is gay marriage a “right?”
Let’s say gays have every single legal right married couples have, including adoption, just not the label.
In that hypothetical model, why is it the “right” of gays to also have the label? It’s just a word, isn’t it? If it’s more than a word, then what precisely do gays think it is and why do they want a word so very much that they start a global campaign over it? Why is that?
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 10:57 am
“My other concern is that it is just another attempt top normalise something that is harmful to society.”
Ah, the old ‘I have to override individual rights for the good of society’ argument.
Look how well that turned out in the 20th century.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 11:03 am
Is straight marriage a right? Not in the religious sense I mean.
It isnt a global campaign. It is a collection of local campaigns. It just seems global because it is happening in the places you pay attention to. But let me reassure you, there is no gay marriage campaign in Iran.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 11:15 am
They stole the word gay because homosexual, as already noted in my previous post has been taken to mean filthy butt fuckers and does not even include carpet lickers. As seen from the majority of anti butt fucker posts.
Vote:The world will not stop just because there are no longer legislation perpetrating discrimination on a couple just because of their sexual preferences
There were once laws that said anal sex was a criminal offence. has rescinding those laws destroyed society ?
June 2nd, 2012 at 11:24 am
“The world will not stop just because there are no longer legislation perpetrating discrimination on a couple just because of their sexual preferences. ”
Griff, it is good to hear you are not one of those who perpetuate the myth that homosexual are born that way. I actually acknowledge that there may be predisposition to one sexual preference but not that it is something someone is born with and cannot change from birth.
Some people may have a predisposition to become alcoholics or compulsive gamblers. However there is such a thing as free will.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 11:27 am
Is straight marriage a right? Not in the religious sense I mean.
To the extent that straight marriage is enshrined in a legal framework, yes it is. That’s not the only thing that marriage is BTW, but marital “rights” inhere in that legal framework and only in that legal framework.
And what I’m saying is, if gays have other laws giving them exactly precisely the same privileges in every single way except for the label, why is that discrimination? And no-one has explained that. People say above “if it’s only a word, then why not give it to them” and “if they can’t have the word then it’s not the same” but they haven’t explained why it’s not the same. How can you have a right inhere in a word? It’s a word. No-one has explained that to me.
I know why they want it BTW, for “marriage” is not just a word, it’s a brand. It’s like IBM or any other brand. It has inherent value. That’s why gays want it. They won’t admit that’s why they want it, but that is why they want it.
Useful idiots of course don’t see this, that’s why they are called idiots. They don’t realise gays want the brand, they don’t even know marriage is a brand. That’s why they don’t see anything wrong with giving it away to the gays, for free. But if you were the owner of the IBM brand, you would not think it didn’t have any value, would you. Of course you wouldn’t. You would know it’s on the balance sheet of IBM as a multi-billion dollar asset. But a child would think it’s only a word in blue with pretty lines going through it. IBM is just a word. So don’t be a child about this if you’re on the side of the gays. The first step is recognising what it is you’re advocating gets given to the gays, for free. Have a think about marriage as a brand and what that entails to human society and behaviour. Think of the entire institution sociologically across nations and throughout history and what it has meant to human beings all through that time. That’s what you’re talking about giving to the gays.
Once you’ve realised what you’re giving to the gays, have a think about why oh why the gays are so very serious and persistent in their advocacy for “the word.” For that’s what they’re doing, isn’t it. Their campaign does not refer to the brand, does it. No, they completely fail to explain that, don’t they. Rather disingenuous of them, not to explain what they really want, isn’t it. I mean if it was really about wanting all the rights of marriage then in this country, what they would be asking for is gay adoption rights and that’s it. Civil unions already give them everything else. But they don’t ask for that, do they? That fact alone should give one pause for thought. What are they really after, if they aren’t being honest in what they want?
And then they go even further and not only fail to mention what it is they really want, but they pretend if they don’t get it then it’s somehow discrimination. I mean FFS, how is it discrimination if they have every single right under the sun, but they don’t get the brand. Pray explain that, please. Someone. Anyone.
It isnt a global campaign.
Kimble I’ve mentioned that above. It’s global in the sense of being confined to western territories. This should give one further pause for thought if one knows anything at all about social engineering and how it works. Feminism for example has also been confined to the western territories.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 12:03 pm
Chuck Bird,
So if there is such a thing as free will can you freely choose to fuck a sheep’s arse without being revolted? Simple experiment. If you use your so-called free will to not be revolted then we all laugh at you for enjoying a sheep’s arse, and if you can’t choose not to be revolted then it just goes to show how ridiculous your point of view is.
The “predisposition” is the fact that their brains are not stimulated by the opposite sex. It is stimulated by the same sex. Sure they can choose to engage in heterosexual behaviour. But why should they? Why should they do something that does not satisfy them just to satisfy your idiotic obsession with what other people do with their genitals?
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 12:12 pm
So, Liberal Minded Kiwi – in one breath you’re telling me that there are many homosexual priests who turn out to be paedophiles, and on the other hand you’re telling me that gay marriage/adoption is OK?
Sounds like a disconnect there, my friend.
And yes, there is a long history of homosexual/paedophile connection, not least of which is NAMBLA (the North American Man Boy Love Association) marching with gay groups and parades. For more info check out http://www.mega.nu/ampp/baldwin_pedophilia_homosexuality.pdf
But no, no connection there, right?
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 12:23 pm
Good research Fletch. Would you send me an email please so I can give you some you may not have chuckbirdnz@gmail.com
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 12:23 pm
Chuck,
“it is good to hear you are not one of those who perpetuate the myth that homosexual are born that way. I actually acknowledge that there may be predisposition to one sexual preference but not that it is something someone is born with and cannot change from birth.”
So you weighed up the pros and cons one day and decided to be heterosexual?
Really?
You make a conscious choice to be sexually attracted to women?
Truly, you are not like other men.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 12:38 pm
“…There were once laws that said anal sex was a criminal offence. has rescinding those laws destroyed society ?…”
No….but an awful lot of gays kill themselves !
And the rest are mostly sad, angry or feel helpless.
And it doesn’t matter if it is in Pitchfork Provence or San Francisco – the suicide rates are the very same according to ‘gay healthcare advocates’.
Boys up to the age of about 5 are nutured by their mothers, then those who are then ‘affirmed’ into their sexuality by their fathers up to, and through their teenage years are then ‘straight’.
Those that arn’t ‘affirmed’ become homosexual.
And those who -refuse- to recognize that ‘condition’ are either immature or victims of the untruths that are told.
Legalizing ‘anal sex’ is differant to ‘legitimising’ anal sex.And it is the legitimizing of the gay ‘lifestyle’ that is doing all the damage to gays – as the ‘legitimising’ is a false sense of security in that ‘condition’ that can then become harmful.
The legalizing of ‘anal sex’ was only ever introduced so as not to make criminals of those who struggled with their sexual identity.Nothing more.The rest since then has been moves made by so-called ‘progressives’ and a compliant media and government.
And the ‘progressives’ say that the straights are the ones to blame for the miserable lives that most gays live.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 12:47 pm
“Boys up to the age of about 5 are nutured by their mothers, then those who are then ‘affirmed’ into their sexuality by their fathers up to, and through their teenage years are then ‘straight’.
Those that arn’t ‘affirmed’ become homosexual.”
We should bear in mind that another of Harriet’s facts is that if the wind changes direction while you are pulling a funny face you’ll be stuck like it.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Griff #
OOPS…I’m Wrong…silly fucken me Griff !
Here goes again -
“…There were once laws that said anal sex was a criminal offence. has rescinding those laws destroyed society ?…”
YES – Because an awful lot of gays kill themselves !
And the rest are mostly sad, angry or feel helpless !
Just so you get the point Griff – it is only the gays who actually practice anal sex !
And they are the ONLY ONES killing themselves over it !
So yes – it is destroying society if you believe that gays are part of society Griff !
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 12:54 pm
Adults can consent. Children and animals cannot.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 1:09 pm
“Just so you get the point Griff – it is only the gays who actually practice anal sex !”
Harriet, Peter Davis would disagree with you. He has done some research into heterosexual sex practices presumably by asking people. The good news is that according to him NZ does not have as many homosexuals or heterosexuals practicing anal sex.
He did not give any research of the percentage of homosexuals practicing anal sex. I wonder what Helen would think of his study. I suppose he shuld ask her next time he visits her in the US.
I refer to p60 of, “Intimate Details & Vital Statistics”
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Just so you get the point Griff – it is only the gays who actually practice anal sex !
Gee you are going so far out of your way to justify my
Griff (2,208) Says:
June 2nd, 2012 at 10:33 am
“Gay marriage is based on gay “sex”, and anyone who thinks that sodomy is equivalent to actual sexual intercourse (coitus) needs their head examined. How is it in any way the same? The anus is not a sexual organ – it is a sewer line for bodily waste.”
This is the entire debate from the fundies
Funny to me and most others gay does not mean anal sex
only from the homophobic fundie community would you get such a sexist stand point
according to the fundies there are no gay woman only filthy butt fuckers
Of which the Church is acknowledged to have an over representation within the preacher community-
The only way to debate with the poor fundie sods is to ridicule their blatant sexism and attack the foundation of their perversion, Christianity.
I would now add
Vote:Hetro couples also engage in anal sex
Lesbians are gay as well and they do not place penises up arseholes
June 2nd, 2012 at 1:11 pm
wat dabney #
“…We should bear in mind that another of Harriet’s facts is that if the wind changes direction while you are pulling a funny face you’ll be stuck like it…”
As the Generals say “When you are taking lots of flak….you’re right over your target.”
Guys don’t just wake up one day and say “Hey…I’m gonna take it up the shitter tonight…as my girlfriend has been called into work. “
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 1:20 pm
Griff 3
Women [who take it up the butt]never PUBLICLY asked for sodomy to be legalized – it was the gays.
Also, parliment never singled out women and anal sex – only gays and anal sex.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Griff3
And THAT is why it was called the homosexual law reform bill !
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 1:49 pm
WIKI
Gay
“traditionally means “happy” but in Modern English it also means homosexual. This meaning is more common now. The word “gay” describes a person who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex instead of the opposite sex. They may also be romantically interested in people of the same sex. This means males who like other males or females who like other females.”
Homosexual
“Is a sexual orientation. A homosexual person is sexually and romantically attracted to people of their own gender. ….. Homosexuality is known to exist in all cultures and countries, though some governments deny that homosexuality exists in their countries.”
Anyone who is homosexual partakes in sex that involves only penises and sphincters? I think you need to have a special word that actually describes the subset of humanity that you discuss.
Vote:Butt fuckers would satisfy this description yet I find it slightly demeaning to those who partake of this harmless fetish.
Else wise I will continue to think you are discussing the rights of gays or homosexuals not those who do the porksword up the pooh hole thing
June 2nd, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Adults can consent. Children and animals cannot.
That doesn’t matter – we’re talking about orientation, whether it is acted upon or not.
What if a guy has a paedophilic orientation, but never acts on it?
Is that not still an orientation?
Rather, I think these are just sexual desires.
Vote:“Orientation” must be put forward as a theory now, because it’s the only way that gays are legally allowed to engage in sexual conduct –
June 2nd, 2012 at 2:20 pm
Again, I have to ask the pro-gay lobby in this thread – do you consider sodomy or other homosexual “sex” equal to heterosexual sexual intercourse (coitus)?
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 2:23 pm
Fletch – any consenting sexual activity between adults is equal.
Vote:BTW – you like to ask questions; no one has yet answered mine from 10.31am.
June 2nd, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Fletch:Sorry, I do not believe it.
Don’t believe what? There are differences in mean finger length ratios in lesbians compared to non-lesbians. What don’t you believe about that? There are differences in the outer hair cells in the cochlea of lesbians compared to non-lesbians. There are differences in the size of certain nuclei in the hypothalamus of gay men compared to non-gay men and this has also been seen in gay sheep. What don’t you believe about this?
And what of the gays who go on to become straight? Such as Charlene Cothran and Michael Glatze.
Do you have any examples that don’t involve born-again christians? There are a number of ex-ex-gays out there who have testified that the ex-gay phenomenon isn’t real. These people haven’t actually changed their orientation – they’ve just become very good at lying to themselves.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Fletch:do you consider sodomy or other homosexual “sex” equal to heterosexual sexual intercourse (coitus)
What do you mean by this question? Gay men physically enjoy anal sex if thats what you mean.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 2:35 pm
…you like to ask questions; no one has yet answered mine from 10.31am. Do we really need a law to govern what a marriage is?
Yes, we do. Since a marriage is in actuality the fundamental support unit of society: it’s the family, under another name. Family is not the only thing a marriage is, but it’s the major thing, like the sun is to a solar system. Just like in a solar system you have a sun, and you have planets and asteroid belts and other things. So in a marriage you not only have the family, you also have love, fidelity, commitment, respect, all those other things as well. But the major thing to a marriage, is the family. Sometimes you have childless couples, but that doesn’t matter, we’re talking about what does marriage mean, as a concept. And a concept doesn’t care about exceptions it only cares about general rules. And in general, the reason why people get married is to settle down and have a family. You don’t HAVE to get married in order to settle down and have a family, but the vast vast vast majority of people who do want to do that, do get married.
So why wouldn’t society need a law about that? You might as well ask, why would society need laws about buying real estate. Why does society need laws at all? Crikey mm.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 2:41 pm
There really is no logical requirement for the government to regulate personal relationships between consenting adults. Given that there is absolutely no difference between unmarried or married partners (of either sex) raising children; it can’t be for the sake of the children.
Vote:The state has no role here. If people want to call themselves married – do so. I don’t think that anyone really believes a relationship is qualitatively different because the government issues a permission slip.
June 2nd, 2012 at 2:47 pm
“..do you consider sodomy or other homosexual “sex” equal to heterosexual sexual intercourse (coitus)?..”
funniest one-liner in this thread…
..what a strange head that fletch has got..eh..?
phillip ure@whoar.co.nz
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 2:48 pm
There really is no logical requirement for the government to regulate personal relationships between consenting adults.
No but a family is not merely a personal relationship between two consenting adults, is it.
That’s why marriage needs to be regulated, because marriage is not merely a personal relationship between two consenting adults.
Because marriage = family. And newsflash: family = children: i.e. other people in addition to those two consenting adults.
Crikey again mm. Normally you’re not this obtuse.
It’s not rocket science, is it? Or is it? If so, why? What about the above don’t you understand? I assume you don’t disagree with anything. All those facts I just mentioned are obvious and plain, beyond dispute, are they not.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 2:51 pm
Oh Picture me upon your knee,
With pink for you and pink for me
Just me for you and you for me, alone
Nobody near us, to tell us were queer as
No straight sex relations
At our weekend vacations
We won’t have it known
That we do it kinkily
Day will break and you’ll awake and start to bake
A fairy cake for me to take for all the boys to see.
We will raise a family, a Les for you, a Poof for me,
Oh, can’t you see how happy life would be?
You are revealing a plan so appealing
You’ve got the Nat straights a rocking and reeling
All of your schemes are starting to do it for me
I’d like to wait here for some future date dear
When straight folks are made to feel utterly queer
When the folks in charge make Gay compulsory
Day will break and you’ll awake and start to bake
Vote:A fairy cake for me to take for all the boys to see.
We will raise a family, a Les for you, a Poof for me,
Oh, can’t you see how happy life would be?
June 2nd, 2012 at 2:52 pm
Can you have a family without a marriage? Is there any qualitative difference between an unmarried couple raising children and a married couple doing the same thing? The only interest the state has in the welfare of those children. If marriage was essential to that welfare, wouldn’t we be making it a crime to raise children without being married?
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 2:53 pm
Its called sexual fetish fletch
Anyone can have a kink
Some of Christianitys sects dictate to their members that sex must be preformed with a man on the top and a woman underneath face to face that to is a fetish. Its not up to any one to dictate the preference of others as long as it conforms to “The golden rule does no harm”
As a teen age male
I read this Lady’s work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shere_Hite Shere Hite I was curious about sex as most normal persons are So this stuff is sooo old
The Hite Report on Female Sexuality (1976, 2004)
The Hite Report on Men and Male Sexuality (1981)
It takes all sorts Prince Charles and tampons anyone
You have no right to dictate what two consenting adults do for sex That includes that all male homosexuals must have butt sex
Your name sake fetish included http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fletching
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 2:58 pm
“..Because marriage = family…”
bullshit…
..hetero couples marry..and have no children..
..are they not really ‘married’..?
..lordy..!..you talk some shit…often..don’t you..?
..and what’s with the purse-lipped/simpering that goes with yr slagging the ‘dumb’ ones..?
..it’s very ‘gay’..yr flouncing all over the keyboards..(in the sense before the current one..and after the ‘happy’ meaning..)
phillip ure@whoar.co.nz
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 3:00 pm
You might want to check out the Marriage Act 1955, LJ, because marriage is merely a personal relationship between to qualifying consenting adults. There is no particular consideration of your view of a family in there at all.
(Incidentally, the consideration of your view of family and “qualifying” adults extends only so far as to prohibit marrying your own.)
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 3:01 pm
Can you have a family without a marriage?
mm I explained above why that issue is not relevant to this question. Same as the fact you can have a marriage without having a family. Neither circumstance is relevant because laws are framed to account for the general circumstance.
Should we have a law at all?
Again, I have explained why above. We are talking about regulating the social arrangement that nurtures the young of our species. If that doesn’t deserve to be regulated then why the fuck does anything deserve to be regulated? So of course we need to have the marriage act. There is absolutely no question, it is a required piece of law.
If marriage was essential to that welfare, wouldn’t we be making it a crime to raise children without being married?
I don’t know mm, would we? That seems a tad harsh but if you think that would be a good idea you might be able to persuade me. I don’t know where you got the idea from that I was saying marriage was essential to that welfare. I was saying in most cases marriage is done for the purpose of having a family. That’s not the same thing as the conclusion you drew just then. I do wish you’d read what I say a bit more carefully.
There is no particular consideration of your view of a family in there at all.
bhudson when I was explaining that view it was in light of what the social construct of marriage is. A social construct is not the thing which is encapsulated in section 2 (the definitions section) of any given law. Fuck I’m getting sick of people misunderstanding profoundly basic concepts around this issue.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 3:08 pm
“..Because marriage = family…” bullshit…
Fucking d’oh phil you utter moron.
Listen fuckwit.
MOST marriages happen because people want to settle down and have children. THAT MEANS YOU MORON THAT AS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT I.E. WHAT PEOPLE THINK OF IN THEIR HEADS WHEN THEY THINK OF MARRIAGE AS A CONCEPT, MOST PEOPLE SUBCONSCIOUSLY EQUATE THE CONCEPT OF MARRIAGE WITH THE CONCEPT OF CHILDREN WHICH MEANS, DER, A FUCKING FAMILY. THIS ALSO MEANS YOU MORON, THAT IT DOESN’T MATTER ONE LITTLE BIT WHETHER OR NOT EVERY SINGLE MARRIAGE HAS CHILDREN OR WHETHER EVERY SINGLE FAMILY INVOLVES MARRIAGE BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE GENERAL CONCEPT OF MARRIAGE AS IT EXISTS IN PEOPLE’S HEADS. I.E. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL REALITY. IF YOU ASK SOMEONE WHAT WORDS POP INTO THEIR HEAD WHEN YOU SAY MARRIAGE, NO-ONE IS GOING TO TURN AROUND AND THINK, GEE, 2.354% OF MARRIAGES DON’T HAVE CHILDREN. ARE THEY. NO. DER.
CAN’T YOU GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL?
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 3:10 pm
Gee capitals = shouting!
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 3:12 pm
“most cases marriage is done for the purpose of having a family”
“MOST” any numbers or did it come from the Favourite kiwi blog statistics source. WWW. anally compiled statistics for everyone. com
Before romantic love marriage was a vastly different institution than our present understanding and in two hundred years it will have changed again
Vote:Conservatives are destined to lose battles like this. There is no justification except their miss held religious beliefs and homophobia.
June 2nd, 2012 at 3:17 pm
My great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great Grannie was betrothed to the Merovingian heir Griff but he was murdered by his Mother so she married a shepherd instead!
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 3:19 pm
WWW. anally compiled statistics for everyone. com
did you find more Jimmy GEE, 2.354% OF MARRIAGES DON’T HAVE CHILDREN. ARE THEY. NO. DER.
New Zealand Families today and looking forward
http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj35/35-focus-on-families.html
At the heart of New Zealand families today are couples. In 2006 57% of all adults aged 16 years and over were partnered and living together. The majority of those partnered (76%) were legally married (Statistics New Zealand 2007g). Of all households in 2006, 38% were couples with at least one dependent child and 19% were couples without children. Couples without children are expected to increase faster than couples with children over the next couple of decades (Statistics New Zealand 2007e).
De facto relationships and re-partnering are common. In 2006, 34% of all marriages were remarriages (Statistics New Zealand 2007c, 2008:1, 62). In the same year about 20% of all men and women who were in partnerships were living in a de facto relationship. Of partnered people aged 15–44 years, about 40% were living in de facto relationships, compared with 10% of those aged 45 years and over (Statistics New Zealand 2007c, 2008:63). This suggests de facto relationships will remain important, if not increase in frequency.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 3:22 pm
Before romantic love marriage was a vastly different institution than our present understanding and in two hundred years it will have changed again
Of course it changes over time Griff that’s the precise reason the gays want to get hold of it. What about that don’t you understand?
There is no justification except their miss held religious beliefs and homophobia.
Well Griff, I’m both a Christian and a Conservative. Throughout this entire debate I have not used Christianity as a justification for my position instead I’ve explained it entirely on social engineering grounds because that is what this is about.
So please don’t lie, there’s a good chap.
Gee capitals = shouting!
I just wish there was an internet convention for grabbing one by the collar and shoving them up against the wall while one explained one’s point for it seemed appropriate to use that as well. I didn’t really think any emoticon cut the mustard.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 3:25 pm
gee..twitchy..hope i didn’t make you even more twitchy..eh..?
..but even shouting..you talk utter shite…
..i/we had family friends who had no children when i was a kid..
..they were still married…
..to your mind..is not succumbing to the generic-programming/automatic-impulses to procreate..evidence of an aberration of sorts..?
..and what about medical reasons..?..is their marriage inferior..in yr sky-pilot-myth-wracked little brain..?
..you really are a fucken whack-job..eh..?
(and..step back from the ‘caps lock’..!.you’ve had more than enough..!.)
phillip ure@whoar.co.nz
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Mine dose not go back that far
Vote:I believe that I am related to many that where hung burnt or tortured
seems to be a slightly anarchistic bent in the forbearers
June 2nd, 2012 at 3:26 pm
What’s your point Griff? As I just explained to phil, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the reality as it is on the ground and everything to do with the concept as it is in people’s heads. Please see my 3:08 for more info.
phil, read the actual words in my 3:08 – it’s clear from your 3:25 you didn’t read any of the words. It’s the words that explain things phil. Hope that helps.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 3:30 pm
I thought all Welshmen were related to sheep Griff?
In your case a rack of lamb perhaps!
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 3:39 pm
“concept as it is in people’s heads”
Is not universally that held in moral conservative Christians heads
and as that on checking* www: analy…..com. Would be around sixty percent Conservatives will lose this one.
* as the numbers are at 50 percent on KB I would hazard that a left leaning blog would be more in favour
No a very dressed up wolf Johnboy
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 3:42 pm
You’re Tom Jones Griff?
Well I never!
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Griff, WTF are you talking about? It sounds like you are talking about how many people would approve of gay marriage. If so, that is not what my quote you have referenced, was talking about, at all.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 3:58 pm
Don’t believe what? There are differences in mean finger length ratios in lesbians compared to non-lesbians. What don’t you believe about that? There are differences in the outer hair cells in the cochlea of lesbians compared to non-lesbians. There are differences in the size of certain nuclei in the hypothalamus of gay men compared to non-gay men and this has also been seen in gay sheep. What don’t you believe about this?
Utter rubbish.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 3:59 pm
My question still stands –
Do you consider homosexual “sex” equal to sexual intercourse practised by heterosexuals?
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 4:00 pm
Leaping Jimmy.
Your argument is confused and contradictory.
As you agree, marriage is not the same thing as having children: there are childless marriages, and there are children born outside of marriage.
If childless marriages are to be allowed then your argument for banning gay marriage falls to the ground.
Put another way, if gays are to be banned from marriage then so are barren and menopausal women.
Fletch,
“Again, I have to ask the pro-gay lobby in this thread – do you consider sodomy or other homosexual “sex” equal to heterosexual sexual intercourse (coitus)?”
Perhaps people don’t reply to your question because it is so obviously irrelevant to the question of marriage?
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 4:08 pm
Perhaps people don’t reply to your question because it is so obviously irrelevant to the question of marriage?
Not so. Ultimately, marriage is built around the sexual act – not just in terms or procreation but in the joining of man and woman into ‘one flesh’. The physical sex act draws couples together in a life-giving act.
Vote:In contrast, homosexual “sex” is not sex at all. It’s a pale imitation – a parody. If we were to compare it with eating, it would be like chewing the food and spitting it out. You have the momentary pleasure of the taste but none of the things that give life and feed the person. Thus the term “eating” would not really describe what would be done. The same with “sex” – it might look similar from the outside, but it isn’t sex at all.
June 2nd, 2012 at 4:17 pm
Your argument is confused and contradictory.
It’s very simple wat. If you can’t understand it, this is not my problem.
If childless marriages are to be allowed then your argument for banning gay marriage falls to the ground.
What? Firstly, I’m not banning gay marriage. I’m not permitting them to use the label. They can have all the legal rights. They just can’t call it marriage. That’s a hetero brand that queers can’t have. I’ve explained why above. This wat, is not “banning gay marriage.” You can only ban something if someone already has it. Gays don’t have it, so it can’t be banned, can it.
People who allege that childless marriages are relevant to anything I’ve said are the ones who are confused. This is because I repeat, for the fiftieth time, I have been basing my argument around a social construct. A social construct does not depend on exceptions to the rule. A social construct, IS the general rule. See my 3:08 to phil, if you still don’t understand.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 4:18 pm
Yes, Fletch, it is obvious that you consider gay sex deeply disgusting; although at the same time quite fascinating.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 4:21 pm
Fletch,
“Ultimately, marriage is built around the sexual act ”
You haven’t met my wife then.
But did you ever consider that, just possibly, other people have different preferences and needs than you? So, again, it’s quite irrelevant you telling everyone how great vaginal sex is. It’s got nothing to do with anything.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 4:22 pm
Hell I’d love to be around in class when little Johnny gets asked what his Dad (Mum) does for a living after the queer marriage act goes through.
I’m beginning to think I should start showing more respect to teachers!!
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 4:25 pm
mm and wat both of you are disingenuously ignoring Fletch’s point which is quite accurate:
“The physical sex act draws couples together in a life-giving act.”
Gay sex cannot do this. Gay sex is mere lust. Only male-female sex is capable of the magic of what Fletch describes above. That’s the difference.
Gays of course find this terribly inconvenient but hey, this is nature. This is the laws of physics and biology and everything else, so how the fuck can it be discriminatory in any way.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 4:28 pm
I wish you would stop putting cold hard logic in the way of gay aspirations Jimmy!
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 4:29 pm
Wat’s wife sounds interesting though!
Tell us more wat!
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 4:37 pm
Jimmy,
“They can have all the legal rights. They just can’t call it marriage. That’s a hetero brand that queers can’t have.”
You would have saved yourself a lot of time if you’d just stated right at the outset that you are simply indulging your prejudices, rather than concocting the reams of irrelevence and dissemblance you posted above.
But then the issue is that we all have the right to indulge our prejudices in our private lives, but the state does not when enacting legislation.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 4:37 pm
I wish you would stop putting cold hard logic in the way of gay aspirations Jimmy!
Yes Johnboy I’d like to stand aside and let the useful idiots and the evil gay campaigners wreck our entire western civilisation but for some reason I’m reluctant to just stand aside without a fight on this. I don’t quite know why but it just seems like the right thing to do. I just there were a few less useful idiots that’s all. But hey, public education just isn’t what it used to be, is my conclusion on that…
You would have saved yourself a lot of time if you’d just stated right at the outset that you are simply indulging your prejudices, rather than concocting the reams of irrelevence and dissemblance you posted above.
wat read my 11:27 where I explain what it will do to marriage and why they can’t have the brand. I realise you don’t wish to read the whole post but if you just searched on my posts on this thread you would find the whole thing spelt out quite succinctly. And you will find none of it is based on a prejudice and all of it is based on cold, hard logic and history.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 4:42 pm
Edit: “wat read my 11:27 where I explain
what it will do to marriage andwhy they can’t have the brand.”Once you’ve read that, let me know and I’ll tell you what it will do to marriage if they are allowed to have the brand.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 4:42 pm
Jimmy,
“Gay sex is mere lust. Only male-female sex is capable of the magic of what Fletch describes above. That’s the difference. ”
Other straight people may disagree with you and, by definition, it obviously isn’t true for gays is it.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 4:46 pm
Other straight people may disagree with you
Well who cares wat. Fletch is not giving an opinion he’s proferring a fact. Straight people may wish to disagree with it but that doesn’t change the fact, it is, in fact, a fact.
by definition, it obviously isn’t true for gays is it.
bingo. Well done wat. 10/10
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 4:49 pm
Jimmy,
Your 11:27 simply explains how marriage is in fact as important to gay people as it is to straight people.
For anyone in favour of the institution I should think that’s a very positive thing.
Are these the sort of evil people who must be kept away from marriage?:
“A married lesbian couple who saved 40 children from white supremacist Anders Breivik’s murder spree at a youth summer camp have been hailed as the unsung heroes of the massacre.
Hege Dalen and her partner, Toril Hansen, braved gunfire to make repeated trips to pick up frightened and wounded youngsters from the waters around Utoya Island.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2021594/Norway-massacre-Lesbians-save-40-children-Anders-Behring-Breivik-Utoya.html
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 4:51 pm
Jimmy,
“Fletch is not giving an opinion he’s proferring a fact. ”
No, he is simply giving us his opinion. It is no more a fact than if he claimed that his favourite ten albums are definitively the best.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 4:52 pm
“Ultimately, marriage is built around the sexual act ”
You haven’t met my wife then.
Still waiting wat.
I suspect your wife is a close relation of my wife!
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 4:59 pm
No, he is simply giving us his opinion. It is no more a fact than if he claimed that his favourite ten albums are definitively the best.
wat, what the fuck is wrong with you. Sigh. This is what Fletch said. The context is clear he was talking about hetero couples not gay couples.
“The physical sex act draws couples together in a life-giving act.”
There are at least two facts in here:
Fact one: The physical sex act draws couples together
Fact two: “The physical sex act [can be] a life-giving act.
wat there is no opinion in here at all. Notice that fletch did not say ‘every time it happens’ so he is not saying in respect of either fact that every time it happens both of those things also happen. No, he’s not saying that, is he. Which means that sometimes, couples can just have a good old fucken root and it doesn’t necessarily draw them together, and it also means they can fuck without having a kid. Nothing in there is inconsistent in anyway. And there is no opinion, at all. If so, where do you see it?
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 5:01 pm
Your 11:27 simply explains how marriage is in fact as important to gay people as it is to straight people.
wat if you think that’s all my 11:27 said then you need to read it again. It’s important to understand the concept of marriage as the brand. Let me know when you’re fully conversant with that for there’s no point continuing the discussion until you understand that completely.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 5:04 pm
I can’t believe Wat has a wife. Even a strange one.
No doubt he will enlighten us soon.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 5:04 pm
Fletch:Utter rubbish.
In what way are these claims rubbish. Do you think the studies are false?
The simple fact is that biological differences have been found. We also know that some sheep are gay which tends to disprove your argument that psychological factors are involved.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 5:08 pm
Jimmy,
So let’s just drop the entirely irrelevent debate about hierarchies of physical intimacy.
As for your ideas about a marriage “brand”, you can theorise all you like; you still don’t get to discriminate in law.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 5:28 pm
As for your ideas about a marriage “brand”, you can theorise all you like; you still don’t get to discriminate in law.
It’s not a theory wat. This is how social engineering works. How the fuck do you think the very same people who are behind the gay marriage campaign have managed to change women and girls over the last thirty years so that now, 11-12 year old girls are having sex with their intermediate school-aged boys? Do you think this has just happened by accident? No, of course not. It’s been engineered wat. Within 20 years.
Think back to when you were at intermediate school, were any girls then thinking of having sex with you? No? So how come it’s happening big-time, now, today, in our intermediate schools of 2012? How come wat?
So no wat, it’s not a theory.
Like I said in my 11:27 if branding didn’t work, as in, change people’s behaviours so they bought more product, then corporations would hardly spend billions if not trillions on establishing them every single day of every single year, would they. And they wouldn’t be placed on their balance sheets as billion dollar ASSETS, would they. No. So marriage is a priceless asset to humanity wat.
It’s clear you still don’t understand what marriage as a brand actually is, you need to think on it some more.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 5:40 pm
Spoken like someone who would also think that there was no adultery in the good old, deeply religious, Victorian days
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 5:47 pm
Spoken like someone who would also think that there was no adultery in the good old, deeply religious, Victorian days
bhudson you mean to tell me when you were at intermediate school the girls there were offering it up like nobody’s business? What school did you go to, and when was that? Last week?
No face it, it’s a fact, isn’t it. In the last twenty years, girls have been losing their virginity at younger and younger ages until now in 2012, many many intermediate-aged children, are doing it. The idiots think this is accidental. That’s why they’re idiots.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 6:01 pm
Titahi Bay Intermediate. It was many, many years ago.
LJ, I wouldn’t argue that our young are becoming sexually aware at a younger age. Although I would point out that what we have are largely anecdotes from a few news reports and our own worries for our own children.
My point was not so much whether or not any intermediate age children are having sex, but the reasons for any increase. Which, in my view, is not some global homosexual conspiracy, but, if anything, the result of commercialisation – the sex appeal of products, then being marketed to younger and younger ages. (Which should really warrant a full treatise, not a dozen or so words.)
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 6:16 pm
“but the reasons for any increase. Which, in my view, is not some global homosexual conspiracy,”
You would be right to a degree. However, the same liberals who promoting these homosexual issue are encouraging also children to have underage sex. I get a bit pissed off at a liberal like Key concerned about homosexuals so called rights to have children but does not give fuck about the rights of good parents.
The case of the 14 year old girl who parents complained about her having group sex with a couple of 20 year olds and the authorities aided and abetted the sexual abuse.
What is Key and National going to do about the destruction of a family by government authorities who were either complicit or turned a blind eye to this sexual abuse of a 14 year old girl? Where was the Commissioner for Children?
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 6:21 pm
re: lesbian finger length –
http://www.narth.com/docs/newstudy2.html
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 6:28 pm
@Chuck Bird
“However, the same liberals who promoting these homosexual issue are encouraging also children to have underage sex.”
Which liberals exactly? Clearly you think it’s a wide spread phenomenon.
bte – Can you give a link concerning these authorities that “aided and abetted sexual abuse”? I don’t give a damn what consenting adults do in their bedrooms (I’m suspicious of people who do), but I’m not for aiding and abetting sexual abuse of minors (different issue completely).
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 6:29 pm
LJ, I wouldn’t argue that our young are becoming sexually aware at a younger age. Although I would point out that what we have are largely anecdotes from a few news reports and our own worries for our own children.
My point was not so much whether or not any intermediate age children are having sex, but the reasons for any increase.
This was my point also, bhudson. And the reason for the increase IMO, is sex ed. Which was instituted like I said, by the same people who are behind the gay marriage thing. You can tell from places like the UK where it’s more advanced than us, what’s going to happen here, in a few years time. Where you see this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1364360/Sex-education-Do-want-5-year-old-child-given-explicit-lessons.html
And it’s argued on the same basis used for gay marriage. If its not done, then its discrimination. Not against gays this time, but against children.
Now that’s extreme, but the whole gay marriage thing like the whole sex ed thing is and always has been wedge politics anyway, so the extreme is only the logical extension of what they aim at. So if the sex ed proponents have in 20 years gone from giving it only to 16 year olds to now giving it to 5 year olds, what they heck do you think they have planned for the gay marriage front.
Note: for the extraordinarily confused, I AM NOT COMPARING SEX-ED TO THE GAY MARRIAGE CAMPAIGN SO DON’T BOTHER PRETENDING I AM ALLEGING GAY MARRIAGE IS ALL ABOUT 5 YEAR OLDS GETTING MARRIED.
Sorry about that bhudson, I know you’re not one of the extraordinarily confused, but there are many of them on this thread, so I’d prefer to pre-empt, than spend the next twenty or so minutes clarifying what I actually, in fact said.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 6:30 pm
Chuck, it is not “Key or National” anymore than it would have been “Clark and Labour”. The authorities, acting in accordance with the law, that should be taking action over this. Setting aside for just a moment that there is very likely information we are unaware of from both sides of the argument [not the 20-something men, I refer to the daughter and her family], the authorities should be investigating that case with great priority.
I am no lawyer (other than the ‘bush’ variety) but I recall from previous news reports that any sexual activity with an underage person is statutory rape here in NZ. Even that not necessarily being the case, this case should be under close scrutiny aby all agencies with purview on it.
But, in view of this specific thread, there is no link between that case and gay marriage. None at all. Not even remotely.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 6:36 pm
On the legalizing of gay marriage and adoption, I think those will be changed long before the next generation of 5 year olds reach voting age.
On the prolifieration of teaching acceptance or normalization thereof, I think you place a little too importance of the lasting impact of teachers’ personal values on their students.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 6:57 pm
bhudson read my 11:27 and previous posts on this thread. It’s a branding campaign and it’s cross-generational. It’s aimed at people not yet born, who grow up in an environment where gay people and straight people all get “married” and since there is no distinction, the olden days view of marriage = family has disappeared so “marriage” doesn’t represent the same things it represents today and has represented for thousands of years.
It’s quite simple.
This is how social engineering works.
Useful idiots don’t get it because (a) they don’t think engineering exists and (b) they only look at the immediate timeframe and not the timeframe the engineers are looking at which is the generation born in 2050 when the concept of gays getting married has been subconsciously assimilated into the collective consciousness and no-one alive except the real oldies recalls what it used to be like back when it changed, in 2012.
As I’ve explained, the reason why this is critically important is not because the engineers are interested in the marital relationship, but because they are interested in the familial relationship, which is a direct by-product of marriage.
The reason why the engineers are interested in the family, is because they hate it and they wish to destroy it. This is because the engineers are interested in making people turn toward the state when they need help, and not the family. I do realise that in 2012 this all sounds a bit “Matrix-like” but the engineers aren’t thinking about today, so you should not, either, when considering this issue.
If you doubt what I say, there are dozens of tells, which you see only when you look at the issue as I’ve described, then they become obvious. Such as, how come the gays never explain why they only want the same rights as other people. How come they never say they’d be happy with civil unions if they gave them adoption. How come they never explain, why they want a word: “marriage.” That’s a huge tell, but you’d never see it, if you didn’t have the mindset I just explained to you.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Jimmy,
You are making absolutely no sense. We are talking about gay marriage and you go off at a tangent about teenagers have (heterosexual) sex. Then you ramble some more about corporations burnishing their brands, and finally conclude that “marriage is a priceless asset to humanity.”
You haven’t demonstrated or proven anything of the sort. Nor have you shown that allowing gay marriage would have any impact at all on other people’s (heterosexual) marriages. You’re just rambling I’m afraid.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 7:20 pm
Actually LJ, the reason I had read (albeit a report from an anti-gay-marriage group) was that the gay community would use the legalization of gay marriage to force religious groups to allow the to marry in their churches.
Now I don’t know if that is true, or merely scaremongering from groups opposed to gay marriage (most likely on relives grounds), but I certainly would oppose any move to force that upon any religious group. My view is that church marriages are decisions for each of the religions [that would include Catholics refusing church weddings for divorced couples] and that people should either join religions whose values and practices are more closely aligned to their own, or work within the Church to change their stance.
I would not support legislation that directly, or indirectly, imposed that sort of obligation upon religions (or other groups for that matter.)
That aside, I see no reason to oppose gay marriage.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 7:53 pm
That is because you are brainwashed imbecile.
See silly little man of minute brain it takes a man and a woman to make a baby and without people making babies people will die out.
So marriage came into being to organize in a civilized fashion the creation of babies.
Unbelievable that anybody can believe that two men or two women are equivalent to a heterosexual couple in anyway shape or form.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 7:53 pm
bte – Can you give a link concerning these authorities that “aided and abetted sexual abuse”? I don’t give a damn what consenting adults do in their bedrooms (I’m suspicious of people who do), but I’m not for aiding and abetting sexual abuse of minors (different issue completely).
SGA, Firstly what does the acronym bte stand for?
Here are a couple of links.
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/shock-after-cyf-counsellor-approves-underage-relationship-4904575
http://consumersvoicenz.com/
This case is extreme but when one considers that nearly all the MPs who voted to support legislation that said school counsellors did not have notify parents when their underage daughter was going to have an abortion were also very supportive of activists homosexual demands I see a link. I suspect many other conservatives also see a link.
@bhudson
One of the first steps of the attack on the family was no fault or no responsibility divorce. Many of those undermining parental rights like no notification for abortion and criminalising parents for smacking a toddler on the bum were homosexuals. You may not see a link but many conservative do.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 8:04 pm
Andrei, I am not the silly little man who thinks that allowing two men, or two women (who are already legally permitted to have sexual relations) to marry, will somehow result in fewer heterosexuals procreating inside or outside of marriage and therefore threatening the future of the human race.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 8:05 pm
bte stands for – the “e” key is beside the “w”key – but you already had figured that out, hadn’t you.
So – one case is it? I’m as outraged by that case as you. But that case is enough for you to claim widespread encouragement of underage sex. Really?
It’s impossible to assess your claims about nearly all the MPs who supported no compulsary notification of parents concerning underage abortions and them being “supportive of homosexual demands” (they “give out” or what?) without specifics. It’s all a bit vague.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 8:18 pm
SGA – I had not worked out but I should have as I make more than my share of typos.
I do not see this as just one case albeit extreme. I am not going to try and find links to support my view about compulsary notification of parents concerning underage abortions.
However, that is a lot of my motivation for taking the stance I have relating to homosexual demands. i do not think I will convert you but you asked so I am telling you my reasoning. You may disagree with it. Fair enough. Pleased to see you do agree with me regards the case I linked to.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 8:25 pm
Gays don’t like being ‘civilly united’
Vote:They want to be ‘married’
At a posh cocktail party they want someone to ask, “Are you with …”
“Yes, we’re married …”
“Oh, you, Trevor, and Steve, over there, are married. A gay marriage, then?”
“And Mike and Janet, you’re …”
“Yes, we’re married … traditionally married”
Good, well that’s sorted – about back to where we started
June 2nd, 2012 at 8:31 pm
@Chuck Bird – I suspect we’d have to agree to disagree at some point, you’re right. There will always be extreme cases, no matter what.
I’m likely off for the night – have a safe weekend anyway (and anyone else who is reading).
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 8:41 pm
One of the first steps of the attack on the family was no fault or no responsibility divorce.
Chuck, I haven’t bothered mentioning the history and the past milestones of the gay marriage campaign to the useful idiots since if they can’t see the current manoeuvrings how could they possibly see any of the past battles but good to see there are others too, who have seen the same road I have.
Shame there are so few of us, and so many blind men in the dark room looking for the black cat, which isn’t there, isn’t there.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 8:42 pm
Chuck Bird (2,264) Says:
June 2nd, 2012 at 6:16 pm
I doubt the commissioner of children gives a rats arse about that kid.
Vote:it’s judeo christian mores and values they want to eradicate.
statism is what the socialists want ultimately.
June 2nd, 2012 at 8:49 pm
Fletch, quoting NARTH:
Did you even read the link Fletch? They agree there is a difference.
Vote:June 2nd, 2012 at 10:04 pm
chiz, a difference that is negligible (hence the 1%) to the point of it being not worth really noting.
Vote:June 3rd, 2012 at 12:49 am
Citation needed.
Are those the ones that dont have rape in their hierarchy of top 10 sins?
Are those the values that determine how much you are MORALLY allowed to charge for slaves and that answer the MORAL questions such as whether the child of your slave fathered by another of your slaves automatically becomes your slave?
The answer to the question is yes. That kid is your slave. Soooo, go ahead and have your male slaves rape your female ones. MORAL.
Vote:June 3rd, 2012 at 3:24 am
I have just scanned all 362 comments – entrenched positions on both sides of the debate.
When it comes to this sort of topic, I suspect no one will be persuaded to switch sides in the debate, so I have to ask: why bother?
Vote:June 3rd, 2012 at 12:36 pm
bhudson#
What are gays going to ‘get’ from Marriage.As that is what this is also about.
I can’t see anything good coming from 2 penises or 2 vaginas, infact, nothing at all.
There just doesn’t seem to be anything in a gay relationship that reflects just one significant bond between a man and a woman – humans they both created.And the resposability that goes with that natural experience of life.
The parents get a continued experience that takes them both through life forgeing common responsabilities and interests at the very least.It is also an example to their children of some of the responsabilities that are expected in society too, at the very least, after they too have experienced that natural experience of creating life itself.Experiancing satisfaction from the Marriage experiance.
Parents also at the least, get the ‘wanting’ to see that their children get ALL of their needs.A significant list that cements the Marriage bond at all levels.It also cements one generation to the next seeing that the ‘wants’ are meet so that all within the Marriage bond are satisfied by it.Marriage is the bedrock of a stable society.Parents then also ‘get’ to see what their obligation to Marriage has done for society and it’s next generations.
Marriage with children is therefor not a ‘stunted’ position.Marriage without them is.
Gays can’t possibly ‘get’ anything like this ‘wanting’ – other than the dissapointment of not getting it.Nor CAN gays give back to society, from THEIR Marriage, anything like what hetros CAN give back from theirs.No matter how hard gays try.Marriage for gays is a ‘stunted’ position – it is about the same on day 2 of Marriage as what it will be on day 10,000nd.
Or in other words – the children get the lifelong benefits of a Marriage but also an EXAMPLE of a Marriage.Society therefor ‘gets’ this too : The next generation knowing what is needed to support life.Marriage with children is therfore a natutral continuance of the knowledge of life. The natural participation in life itself.
This also shows that Marriage is a bond between one man and one woman and NOT a bond between those who are Married and society.Society like the children, ONLY benefits from Marriage if those WHO are Married take it seriously: Marriage does not fail people, people fail Marriage.
Just because some people fail Marriage, themselves and their kids, does not then mean that the institution itself should be taken less seriously.Infact, you would then be taking more seriously the actions of those who failed, as more beneficial to society, than those who didn’t.A stupid idea.
I can’t see how Gays will get anything from Marriage as they need to come to the realisation that they won’t even be trying it.Their’s won’t even be one of an ‘unsatisfied experiance’.Just absolute dissapointment from the realisation that they have, infact, excluded themselves from the Marriage experiance: The social mores placed around what is natural.
And of those who DIDN’T fail Marriage, you would find, and the evidence shows, did so at the VERY LEAST for the sake of their children.Altruistic committment.
And the government, should stop day dreaming about Marriage and get with the reality of Marriage, strengthen the Marriage Act for the sake of the children – and their children.
Vote:June 3rd, 2012 at 2:26 pm
Fletch:a difference that is negligible (hence the 1%) to the point of it being not worth really noting.
Its a small difference but a difference nonetheless. By way of example, there is a difference between the average height of men and women. This difference is also quite small but that doesn’t change the fact that on average women are shorter than men. Psychosocial factors do not cause finger length differences.
And there are other biological differences including the stuff on otoacoustic emissions that I’ve posted on before.
Vote:June 3rd, 2012 at 3:05 pm
@Harriet
“What are gays going to ‘get’ from Marriage.As that is what this is also about.”
“Marriage with children is therefor not a ‘stunted’ position.Marriage without them is.”
When my father remarried later in life, there was no possibility of him and his wife having children. However, they seemed to “get” a lot from their marriage – love, companionship, intimacy, emotional and physical supprt and comfort. I think you’re rather rude to dismiss such marriages as ‘stunted’.
Vote:June 3rd, 2012 at 4:37 pm
Marriage represented the fullest commitment one person could make to another.
Vote:The State indicates this to some degree by legislating to make a de facto relationship legally closer to a marriage, and some Churches still attempt o maintain the position by not recognising divorce.
A marriage was harder to dissolve than any other relationship. All these positions have now changed somewhat but for homosexuals it is still a goal of approval.
Homosexuals are perceived [if even only in their own eyes] as being ‘abnormal’.
You may civilly unite but not marry.
But when they can marry, some other word or phrase will be required to absolutely define the relationship, because the word ‘marriage’ will have lost its exclusive meaning.
A couple will still be ‘a same-sex marriage’ or ‘traditionally married’.
Just ‘married’ will no longer define what you are, as it does now.
June 4th, 2012 at 10:41 pm
Hi Fletch,
No way I’m going to be able to respond to everything on this thread since I left, but for the sake of sanity, I want to respond to your bizarre reasoning.
It is not the fact that a proclivity – whether it is homosexuality, heterosexuality, homosexual paedophilia, heterosexual paedophilia, a thing for blondes, bestiality or a thing for a man in uniform – is an orientation that makes it okay for someone to indulge in it.
What makes it none of anyone else’s business is that it is between two consenting adults. Adult heterosexuality and homosexuality, adults having a thing for (adult) blondes or a thing for (adult) men in uniform fall within this category of no one else’s business. Bestiality, heterosexual paedophilia, homosexual paedophilia, a desire to rape and any other form of proclivity towards sex with people who either do not or (due to age or species) cannot consent are wrong because of that absence of consent.
I hope that is clear. Consent is the thing. Consent is the line.
Vote:June 4th, 2012 at 10:48 pm
Reading through some of these comments, I think there’s an underlying disagreement that’s not being addressed.
People like Leaping Jimmy think that the state should have a say in how people arrange their family connections, that the state should sanction some arrangements, and restrict or punish people trying to create other arrangements.
Against Leaping Jimmy’s faith in the state is the other side of things – the idea the people should be able to freely determine their own relationships.
While the discussion continues to be about “homosexuality” and “gay marriage”, it will never address the real issue: Leaping Jimmy’s reliance on the State and his opponents’ faith in human liberty.
Vote:June 4th, 2012 at 10:51 pm
“I hope that is clear. Consent is the thing. Consent is the line.”
With gay adoption there is no ‘consent’. Kids’ right to a father and a mother is usurped by gay wants.
Vote:June 4th, 2012 at 10:53 pm
No objection to civil unions. But object to kids become the handbags for gay normalisers. Same goes for heteros that consider kids as handbags to their lifestyles.
Vote:June 4th, 2012 at 10:58 pm
Fair enough, EWS. Children should never be “handbags”. Loving gay or straight couples who understand the immensity of their responsibilities in adopting are the only couples who should be able to adopt.
Vote: