PM says gay marriage doesn’t affect his marriage to Bronagh

July 30th, 2012 at 11:31 am by David Farrar

Kate Shuttleworth at NZ Herald reports:

Prime Minister says he’ll vote in favour a bill to allow marriage equality for same-sex couples because it won’t impact on his relationship with his wife.

Mr Key said on Radio Live he would use a conscience vote to vote in favour of a bill allowing gay and transgender couples to get married.

He signalled his support for the bill in its early stages, but said he was unlikely to change his mind over the course of the debate to allow same-sex couples to marry – given it was a conscience vote.

“You go through all the merits of the argument and look at what people put up; but my view is that if two gay people want to get married I can’t see why it would undermine my marriage with Bronagh,” he told Radio Live.

I think the PM hits the nail on the head. Allowing a same sex couple that loves each other and wishes to marry each other to do so, doesn’t undermine other people’s marriages. I’d say Kim Kardishian’s marriage does more to undermine marriage that allowing same sex couples to marry.

Tags: ,

299 Responses to “PM says gay marriage doesn’t affect his marriage to Bronagh”

  1. Lipo (229 comments) says:

    Then why not allow Polygamy

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

    “Allowing a same sex couple that loves each other and wishes to marry each other to do so, doesn’t undermine other people’s marriages.”

    It undermines marriage itself by radically changing the definition of marriage from a foundational institution whos primary purpose is the raising of a family, to just another “lifestyle choice”.

    It will also be used as an excuse, in the name of “equality” and “human rights” to undermine religious freedom, as is already hapenning in Europe.

    All the liberal spin in the world is not going to change the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. yobha (5 comments) says:

    will be interesting to see the next few polls. the majority of NZers may support it but most of them didn’t vote national and wont change because of this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    OK, Lipo, this derail happens every damn time so let me turn it around. Could you find me one place in the world where same-sex civil marriage is allowed that also allows polygamy – or is in credible danger of making it so? You really need to explain to me how this slippery slope to harems of siblings and household pets works.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Andrei (2,644 comments) says:

    John Key is a nice enough fellow but one with the spine of a jellyfish who will not go up against the “gay” stormtroopers who have honed their Alinkyist narratives to the nth degree.

    But this is living proof that we live in a society ruled by a debased elite who have already squandered what they inherited as they wallow in their self indulgent filth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    It will also be used as an excuse, in the name of “equality” and “human rights” to undermine religious freedom, as is already hapenning in Europe.

    Oh, Lee… if you’re such a big fan of unqualified “religious freedom” I guess you’d have no problems with young Muslim girls having their external genitalia sliced off. On religious grounds, of course. I’ve really got to say I feel so oppressed by civilized nations — including New Zealand — outlawing faith-based barbarity. Now if you’d excuse me, I’ve got to go spit-roast the witch next door…

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

    “But this is living proof that we live in a society ruled by a debased elite who have already squandered what they inherited as they wallow in their self indulgent filth.”

    Brilliantly said!

    The technical term for that “based elite” is ‘Cultural Marxists’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    Lee

    “It undermines marriage itself by radically changing the definition of marriage from a foundational institution whos primary purpose is the raising of a family, to just another “lifestyle choice”.

    So in other words, sex is something that should only happen between married heterosexual couples and only if they intend to have kids?
    If they do not want kids (or any more kids) then they should not have sex at all?

    FFS!…the religious right really are a weird bunch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. hmmokrightitis (1,590 comments) says:

    The sky is falling, the sky is falling…

    Or not.

    God Ive never heard so much shite spouted in my entire life. “But this is living proof that we live in a society ruled by a debased elite who have already squandered what they inherited as they wallow in their self indulgent filth.” I rest my case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. kowtow (8,449 comments) says:

    He’s no conservative.

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

    “Oh, Lee… if you’re such a big fan of unqualified “religious freedom” I guess you’d have no problems with young Muslim girls having their external genitalia sliced off. On religious grounds, of course. I’ve really got to say .”

    “I feel so oppressed by civilized nations — including New Zealand — outlawing faith-based barbarity”

    You mean like thousands of children being murdered every year, literally ripped to shreds, and sacrificed to the idols feminism and liberalism? Sounds like barbarity to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Lucia Maria (2,427 comments) says:

    The PM really needs to read some basic articles on why marriage (and the family) protect society from State tyranny. This one might help: Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry.

    A pertinent quote from an article I quote in my post:

    Crafty fools ask foolish fools, “What harm does same-sex marriage do to your marriage, or to your family?” The truthful answer is: Same-sex marriage makes us all chattels of the state, because the state, in presuming to define the substance rather than the accidents of marriage, has made marriage itself a state artifact.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. hmmokrightitis (1,590 comments) says:

    I would also point out, I may be a tad biased, or lean away from the religious on this matter. As long ago as this weekend, I had sexual relations with a woman – my wife as it happens – and we did not procreate for the purpose of reproduction. We just did it for the hell of it.

    My bad :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Ryan Sproull (7,136 comments) says:

    Lucia,

    Doesn’t that mean that all state-sanctioning of any kind of marriage should be abolished? I’d be fine with that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Jimmy Smits (246 comments) says:

    Lee01 (2,033) Says:
    July 30th, 2012 at 11:37 am

    It undermines marriage itself by radically changing the definition of marriage from a foundational institution whos primary purpose is the raising of a family, to just another “lifestyle choice”.

    It will also be used as an excuse, in the name of “equality” and “human rights” to undermine religious freedom, as is already hapenning in Europe.

    All the liberal spin in the world is not going to change the truth.

    You and Andrei do far more to undermine Christianity in your comments here on Kiwiblog than liberals ever will in their entire lifetimes.

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

    “So in other words, sex is something that should only happen between married heterosexual couples”

    Yes.

    “and only if they intend to have kids?”

    No.

    The issue is what is the PRIMARY purpose of marriage, its reason for existing in the first place.

    FFS, liberals are really stupid.

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

    “You and Andrei do far more to undermine Christianity in your comments here on Kiwiblog than liberals ever will in their entire lifetimes.”

    Why? Because we offend the delicate sensibilities of a few rabid latte liberals?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Ryan Sproull (7,136 comments) says:

    Marriage is for having kids, except when it’s for straight couples who can’t or don’t wan’t to have kids.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Craig Ranapia (1,892) Says:
    July 30th, 2012 at 11:40 am

    OK, Lipo, this derail happens every damn time so let me turn it around. Could you find me one place in the world where same-sex civil marriage is allowed that also allows polygamy – or is in credible danger of making it so? You really need to explain to me how this slippery slope to harems of siblings and household pets works.

    Paedophilia and beastiality analogies may be off the mark but it appears fair to me for the anti-gay-bigots to raise polygamy. And indeed, there is no sensible objection to it according to the same arguments offered in support of gay marriage.

    Perhaps we can simply get government out of the business of “marriage” then people can call whatever they want, whatever they want as long as it doesn’t involve victimized children or pets. Then the fundy religious kooks have nothing to worry about. They can have their “institution” and define it how they like, and others can define it how they like. The government would simply register all relationships as a civil union.

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

    “the anti-gay-bigots”

    Disagreeing with a behaviour isin’t bigotry, it’s opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Jimmy Smits (246 comments) says:

    Lee01 (2,035) Says:
    July 30th, 2012 at 11:53 am

    Why? Because we offend the delicate sensibilities of a few rabid latte liberals?

    No, because your lips are full of poison and you are the prime examples of the brood of vipers Jesus refers to in the Bible – hearts filled with hatred, not showing an ounce of Christian grace, only judgment and hostility – like whitewashed tombs, acting self-righteous on the outside, but on the inside you rot with anger and rage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    This was amusing from the nzherald website:

    A San Francisco band is demanding a New Zealand anti-gay marriage website to remove one of their songs.

    The band, Train, was yesterday informed via Twitter that the video for their song Marry Me had been used on protectmarriage.org.nz, which was launched over the weekend to galvanise opposition to Labour MP Louisa Wall’s Marriage Equality Bill.

    “Didn’t know. Getting it off asap. Tnx 4 tip,” the band wrote in response to Kiwi user Mikey_J_S.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    lee01,

    So is going to church a behaviour? Is praying a behaviour? If I support discrimination and intolerance on this basis am I not a bigot?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Lipo (229 comments) says:

    Weihana – I had this arguement with myself this weekend
    Why are Paedophiles hated since they are only born that way and are only doing what comes naturally to them? I asked myself

    Answer – Paedophiles hurt children that did not ask to be part of their activities

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Redbaiter (8,810 comments) says:

    Let the hopeless progressive John Key, who really belongs in the Labour Party, stand where he wants to on this.

    There is a large percentage of voters who are strongly opposed to the homosexual invasion of the institution of marriage, and Key will pay a heavy electoral price for his support of this action.

    Key has been the biggest disaster the National’s have ever had as a leader.

    Elected on a wave of distaste for socialism he squandered that political capital in sucking up to racists and the left wing.

    He had such a great chance to change NZ for the better and he let it slip away.

    I’ll be so glad to see the last of this slippery smirking little progressive compromiser.

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

    “I’d say Kim Kardishian’s marriage does more to undermine marriage that allowing same sex couples to marry”.

    WTF?

    Do we really think that people take what the law says as serious as what Kim Kardashian does?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    The issue is what is the PRIMARY purpose of marriage, its reason for existing in the first place.

    FFS, liberals are really stupid.

    Well, Lee, you must be the biggest liberal on the block. You’ve just gone and made a slam-dunk case why my post-menopausal mother should not be allowed to re-marry. Same for my foster brother and his wife who can’t conceive children and are in the process of adopting.

    If you want to go scold them for destroying marriage or whatever, wear plenty of padding. My brother and sister-in-law are both ex-cops, whereas my mother is more into the jandal slap of death. Enjoy!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Lucia Maria (2,427 comments) says:

    Ryan,

    Doesn’t that mean that all state-sanctioning of any kind of marriage should be abolished? I’d be fine with that.

    No. The State should recognise and support marriage, it should not redefine and enforce that redefinition. Which is what will happen with “gay marriage”. Those who disagree that certain people can get married or are married will not be tolerated and legal sanctions will follow. That’s what has happened other countries that have redefined marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. hmmokrightitis (1,590 comments) says:

    Lee: “The issue is what is the PRIMARY purpose of marriage, its reason for existing in the first place.”

    Told you this last week – it was a pagan ritual bought into the church to bring up the numbers.

    Oh, and labeling everyone you dont agree with as a liberal and stupid really does say more for the paucity of your intellect than anything else dear boy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. mavxp (483 comments) says:

    Can someone please explain to me why we need civil unions to be called marriage all of a sudden? I thought for all intents and purposes civil union = marriage as far as the state is concerned. If so, isn’t this just a debate over definitions, and a waste of all our time?

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

    “not showing an ounce of Christian grace, only judgment and hostility”

    Except this is a political blog, thus political debate tends to be fierce. You do not know me personally, thus it is you who is execersing judgement and hostility. Moreover we, and Lucia and others, have to contend with the constant judgement, rage and bigotry of a very vocal group of atheist/agnostic liberals.

    Jesus was not a softie when it came toi debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Ryan Sproull (7,136 comments) says:

    No. The State should recognise and support marriage, it should not redefine and enforce that redefinition. Which is what will happen with “gay marriage”. Those who disagree that certain people can get married or are married will not be tolerated and legal sanctions will follow. That’s what has happened other countries that have redefined marriage.

    No, I think you argued pretty strongly for state-sanctioned marriage making us all chattel of the state.

    I think you’re right – the state has no place telling people whether or not they’re married.

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

    “Told you this last week – it was a pagan ritual bought into the church to bring up the numbers. ”

    Yes you did. Couldn’t stop laughing at that one.

    “Oh, and labeling everyone you dont agree with as a liberal”

    I don’t. It’s just that on this blog that is almost always the case. Plus, I’m not a mainstream conservative, and from my position on the political spectrum, most people ARE liberals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Redbaiter,

    Key has been the biggest disaster the National’s have ever had as a leader.

    Two terms, not bad so far.

    Elected on a wave of distaste for socialism he squandered that political capital in sucking up to racists and the left wing.

    A wave of distaste? lol. Your opinions are hardly commonplace. People love socialism. They love something for nothing. A few “Helengrad” placards are hardly indicative of a grassroots uprising just the usual shift in the winds that any government would likely suffer after three terms.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Ryan Sproull (7,136 comments) says:

    Can someone please explain to me why we need civil unions to be called marriage all of a sudden? I thought for all intents and purposes civil union = marriage as far as the state is concerned. If so, isn’t this just a debate over definitions, and a waste of all our time?

    MaxVP, I think the best explanation is imagining if interracial couplings were called “civil unions” and same-race couplings were called “marriages”. Rectifying the situation could be considered comparatively a waste of time (less important than, say, malnutritioned kids or human trafficking), but still worthwhile.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Andrei (2,644 comments) says:

    If I support discrimination and intolerance

    Discrimination and intolerance are not bad things per se

    We are intolerant of pedophiles and if they try and get a job in a school we discriminate against them.

    We say that whatever consenting adults do is ok and that is ok by me

    We say that marriage is special because it is about raising the next generation and that is neither intolerance nor discrimination – it is common sense

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. hmmokrightitis (1,590 comments) says:

    Why laughter Lee, facts too inconvienient to debate? Truths a bitch huh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria,

    No. The State should recognise and support marriage, it should not redefine and enforce that redefinition. Which is what will happen with “gay marriage”. Those who disagree that certain people can get married or are married will not be tolerated and legal sanctions will follow. That’s what has happened other countries that have redefined marriage.

    Ok, so how about a specific amendment which says that religious institutions have the right to discriminate in offering marriage services on the grounds of sexual orientation? I’d be fine with that. It’s not the church per se that I care about. It’s the involvement of the state in sanctioning your intolerance and prejudice. I agree individuals should have the right to believe whatever crazy nonsense they like, and to express that craziness without censure, but the government shouldn’t endorse such prejudice and intolerance.

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

    “So is going to church a behaviour? Is praying a behaviour? If I support discrimination and intolerance on this basis am I not a bigot?”

    Depends entirely on the issue. “Intolerance” is a loaded term, that is very much in the eyes of the beholder, and all societies descriminate in one way or another. They cannot avoid doing so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Lucia Maria (2,427 comments) says:

    Ryan,

    No need to be deliberately obtuse.

    Marriage predates the State and needs no strong State intervention. Marriage, through strong families, supports the State. If the State changes what marriage is, it has to enforce it, because without that enforcement, people will not do as the new definition extorts them to act to certain relationships.

    It’s a kinda simple concept, unless you really don’t want to get it. Reading my actual post, rather than just the quote will help heaps as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    I voted for NZ First last election due to National not taking some big decisions (so why vote for them again as i did in 2008), and next election the Conservatives are starting to look the best opion. At least he stands for something, he has some principles and he pushes them. National (and labour) will do anything to stay in the middle – and that pretty much means appealing to every silly idea that comes along.

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

    “Ok, so how about a specific amendment which says that religious institutions have the right to discriminate in offering marriage services on the grounds of sexual orientation? I’d be fine with that.”

    That would suit me. But how long would it last before the iron laws of “equality” and “rights” are invoked to overturn it?

    “but the government shouldn’t endorse such prejudice and intolerance.”

    opposition to the normalisation of homosexuality is niether prejudice nor intolerance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Andrei (1,329) Says:
    July 30th, 2012 at 12:06 pm

    Discrimination and intolerance are not bad things per se

    We are intolerant of pedophiles and if they try and get a job in a school we discriminate against them.

    Agree.

    We say that whatever consenting adults do is ok and that is ok by me

    Sweet as.

    We say that marriage is special because it is about raising the next generation and that is neither intolerance nor discrimination – it is common sense

    We say? You say. There is nothing in law to support the notion that marriage “is about raising the next generation”. That is a subjective meaning you have personally attached to it. Indeed, a couple’s fertility has no relevance, legally, to whether or not they are allowed to marry so your argument is untenable.

    You can’t say the basis of the discrimination is the inability to procreate when that is not a basis for marriage and couples who are infertile are still permitted to marry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Lucia Maria (2,427 comments) says:

    Weihana,

    Ok, so how about a specific amendment which says that religious institutions have the right to discriminate in offering marriage services on the grounds of sexual orientation? I’d be fine with that.

    The way things are going, that “right to discriminate” won’t last long.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. mavxp (483 comments) says:

    Thanks Ryan, so it is just semantics. I thought as much.

    Using the arm of the state to enact cultural change seems a bit heavy handed though. I understand the need for legal protections equivalent to marriage for civil unions (e.g. for resolution of property disputes when the inevitable partnership break-ups occur), but why force a culture debate when none is actually needed? We have more important things to deal with – like not ending up like Greece and Spain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Scott (1,797 comments) says:

    I am very disappointed with our Prime Minister on this issue. I think he believes that he will not pay an electoral price for this. Given that he did not invest one iota of political capital in overturning the anti-smacking legislation, one wonders how he can support gay marriage? In my opinion the typical National voter would have supported the return of corporal punishment for parents and would be against gay marriage. I am not convinced that what people say when asked in a poll on gay marriage is necessarily how they would vote in the privacy of the voting booth when a referendum is put before them.

    I had hoped that with the demise of Helen Clark we would have had a break from the social engineering of the secular liberal left. But it appears not. If John Key had gone to the country before the election and said – “I am in favour of gay marriage and would be happy to allow a conscience vote on the issue in the next term of Parliament” – I suspect he may not be in power today.

    The other concern is the role of the media who are 100% behind this. The media have become very much the third estate running this country. Something like gay marriage, which is a fundamental redefinition of marriage, can go through because the media are for it. Something like running charter schools, or selling shares in a few power companies, which are quite small changes really, are very hard for the government to make happen because most of the media are against it. The media have a lot to answer for. They are not really honest reporters of the news, but more cheerleaders for the latest fad on the progressive agenda.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Lee01,

    That would suit me. But how long would it last before the iron laws of “equality” and “rights” are invoked to overturn it?

    Lee, we live in a system where Parliament is supreme. They can virtually make whatever law they like at whatever time they please so the mere possibility that they may make a law at some time in the future is not much of an argument. Nothing is ever written in stone for all eternity. Even in the US the constitution can be rewritten (or reinterpreted).

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

    “There is nothing in law to support the notion that marriage “is about raising the next generation”.”

    So what? Laws change and more importantly truth and morality are not defined by laws.

    “That is a subjective meaning you have personally attached to it.”

    Actually it’s an objective meaning. Pretending it’s not and that two homosexuals shacking up with a legal document is marriage is subjective.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    Take keys mask off and you will find the face of klarkula…desperate for the gay vote and will do anything to stay in power. Revolting man..prepared to sell out the mainstream so the sodomites can indulge. Filthy habit .

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

    “Lee, we live in a system where Parliament is supreme.”

    Yes. Shame about that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Ryan Sproull (7,136 comments) says:

    It’s a kinda simple concept, unless you really don’t want to get it. Reading my actual post, rather than just the quote will help heaps as well.

    I read your post. Just strange to use a quote that suggests that the state should stay right out of marriage completely, while arguing that the state should be involved in marriage only just enough to enforce your idea of it.

    And listen to you now. “Marriage predates the State and needs no strong State intervention.” Okay. Then… “If the State changes what marriage is…”

    What? Is marriage independent of the State and needs no strong State intervention? Or can the State change what it is?

    I think marriage is independent of the State. The State has no power to change what marriage is. Two men could get married today in New Zealand, declare their love and commitment for each other before the community, etc. That’s marriage, and the State can’t stop it.

    The State can apply a bunch of legal constraints that unfairly treat that marriage differently from a heterosexual marriage, which is what it does at the moment. I would like that to stop – either by getting its nose out of marriage entirely or getting its nose equally into everyone’s marriages. Preferably the former.

    And that, it appears, is my 5000th comment on Kiwiblog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. kowtow (8,449 comments) says:

    jimmy smits,1156,Jesus and marriage.

    See Mathew19 3-9.

    Man and woman, and based on Genesis “at the beginning ‘made them male and female’.”

    So jimmy et al, Jesus was an anti gay bigot and so is God.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Scott,

    I am very disappointed with our Prime Minister on this issue. I think he believes that he will not pay an electoral price for this.

    He has nothing to lose. Where are the voters going to go? Mana? Mwahahaha.

    If anything they’ll form a party to the right of National which is what the right needs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    I know, let’s argue all afternoon about something we’ll never agree on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    Lee

    You’re hilarious, you really are.

    “Jesus was not a softie when it came toi debate.”

    Really?…then how come the morons who follow him and commit murder in his name do not follow the teachings of ‘Jesus’ and debate rather than bomb and murder?

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

    I’m inclined to agree with Ryan. My preference would be to get the State out of marriage altogether.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Lee01 (2,042) Says:
    July 30th, 2012 at 12:08 pm

    “So is going to church a behaviour? Is praying a behaviour? If I support discrimination and intolerance on this basis am I not a bigot?”

    Depends…

    LOL. Nice waffle. I realize laws discriminate and necessarily so. But clearly your argument that homosexuality is a behaviour, therefore justifying government discrimination, is bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    Andrei

    “We are intolerant of pedophiles (sic)”

    Bullshit!

    The Catholic church protects paedophiles.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Ryan,

    5000.. congratulations… or do you perhaps need a helpline to call? ;)

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

    “Really?…then how come the morons who follow him and commit murder in his name”

    I have never commited murder nor bombed anyone. Nor have the vast majority ot Christians. We DO debate.

    Are you on some kind of medication we need to be aware of?

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

    “The Catholic church protects paedophiles.”

    Actually it protected homosexuals who liked teenage boys.

    Bit of a warning there don’t ya think?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. mavxp (483 comments) says:

    at 12:17pm Ryan said: “The State can apply a bunch of legal constraints that unfairly treat that marriage differently from a heterosexual marriage, which is what it does at the moment…”

    OK, so now you are saying it isn’t semantics. Can you be specific how the state unfairly treats “civil unions” cf. “marriages”?

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

    “LOL. Nice waffle.”

    Its not waffle at all. The problem is that you think I’m going to agree with Liberal definitions of “descrimination” and “bigotry” and “intolerance”.

    Presuming everyone automatically agrees with your subjective political definition of words is kinda silly, not to mention naive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Ryan Sproull (7,136 comments) says:

    OK, so now you are saying it isn’t semantics. Can you be specific how the state unfairly treats “civil unions” cf. “marriages”?

    Adoption’s one at the moment, I believe. But the semantics are bad too. They represent the state treating one group of people differently from another for no good reason. To a large degree, it’s the imposition of one (or some) religions’ values on the entire populace, via the machinery of the state. It should not do that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. pedrogarcia (52 comments) says:

    Some people hate racial equality. Some people hate marriage equality. Let’s just not speak to them anymore.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    Sensible guy that John Key.

    I might vote for him next time… ;-)

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

    “it’s the imposition of one (or some) religions’ values on the entire populace, via the machinery of the state. It should not do that.”

    If it is going to impose at all, it might as well do so on the basis of traditional moral values.

    But again, my ideal is that the only thing the state should do is national defense.

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

    “Some people hate racial equality. Some people hate marriage equality. Let’s just not speak to them anymore.”

    Some people think “equality” actually has some kind of objective meaning. It really doesn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Redbaiter (8,810 comments) says:

    Perdrogarcia- “Some people hate racial equality. Some people hate marriage equality. Let’s just not speak to them anymore.”

    Some people are so indoctrinated rather than educated they don’t know that “equality” is a socially destructive Marxist concept.

    Better if such ignorant fools just STFU.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    I think the real story here is going to be what the whole “you can’t trust that John Key, he just looks dodgy” faction of the left are going to say, now that he’s appearing to support one of their cornerstone policies…?

    This could be a real coup de grace to the staggering corpse of the Labour Party…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Viking2 (11,467 comments) says:

    pedrogarcia (23) Says:
    July 30th, 2012 at 12:38 pm

    Some people hate racial equality. Some people hate marriage equality. Let’s just not speak to them anymore.

    True and some people just hate. Especially the religious nutbars who must control others according to their twisted mindset.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    Lee

    Those who believe in the sky fairy are the ones in need of medication.

    Seriously Lee, have you ever had an original thought in your life?, are you that simple that you have never questioned the work of fiction that you choose to live your life by?

    The gay marriage bill will pass Lee and the sky will not fall on your head. Life will still go on, the Catholic church will still protect paedophiles, the Catholic church will still say that AIDS is bad but condoms are worse and the religious right will still be bigots and small minded fools.

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

    RRM
    You think John Key’s keenness for a whole lot of Labour policies is a secret plan to stay in power?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. hmmokrightitis (1,590 comments) says:

    I challange you red, deliver a comment about something you believe in without using the label marxist. And I note, you always seem to capitalise the M. Closet, out, much?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Don the Kiwi (1,750 comments) says:

    Many of the raving and abusive liberals here don’t seem to understand that Marriage is NOT a religious institution – it is a social institution, which all societies have adopted for thousands of years, as the basis for the balanced raising of children, and proper ordering of society.

    The basis for same sex practitioners demanding to be married does not exist, unless you change the definition of marriage. To claim that the basis of marriage is “because two peaople love eachother”, then the door is open for anyone, in a loving relationship with his/her brother or sister, mother or father, favourite pet – or anything else that is loved – can enter inot a marriage relationship.

    It is society – not churches – who have placed legal restrictions on who can marry who, and for very sound reasons. So people who are related to the stage of first cousins, or parent/child marriages re not permitted because of the strong possiblity of birth defects etc. And there are very valid reasons why society has imposed restrictions on other relationships – incest, peadophilia etc.

    So if the definition of marriage is changed to include any “loving” relationship, anything goes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    MM

    No, I think he’s doing it because it’s the right thing to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Ryan Sproull (7,136 comments) says:

    The basis for same sex practitioners demanding to be married does not exist, unless you change the definition of marriage. To claim that the basis of marriage is “because two peaople love eachother”, then the door is open for anyone, in a loving relationship with his/her brother or sister, mother or father, favourite pet – or anything else that is loved – can enter inot a marriage relationship.

    Change that to “because two consenting adults love each other” to sort out some of your confusion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Don the Kiwi (1,750 comments) says:

    No confusion Ryan.
    I stand by my comment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. alloytoo (542 comments) says:

    Marraige should fall under the ambit of the state, precisely because it raises rights and obligations for the participants against each other and against the state.

    Legally enforcable rights and obligations.

    As such religion should have no say in who is entitled to said obligations because frankly they’re not party to them.

    One red herring should however be addressed (again).

    Marriage celebrants offer their services for hire.
    They are perfectly in their rights to refuse to contract with a gay couple or a christian couple or Pagan couple for whatever reason they like.

    Christian priests refuse service to Hetrosexual couples all the time, most often because they’re not members of their parish, or a ‘different’ kind of christian to them.

    There is absolutely no reason why the current status quo would change with the state sanctioning same sex marriage, they would still be able to discriminate to their hearts content.

    Secular marraige celebrants will probably find that ‘gay’ money spends just the same as ‘straight’ money.

    Finally as Polygamy (and other bizarre practices) are endorsed by the Christian bible I’m uncertain as to why this is perpetualy raised as a objection.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Ryan Sproull (7,136 comments) says:

    No confusion Ryan.
    I stand by my comment.

    If you think that pets are consenting adults, I’m afraid there is some confusion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    If you think that pets are consenting adults, I’m afraid there is some confusion.

    Pets are alright for one-nighters, maybe even FWB, but never marriage.
    Don’s cat just doesn’t know how to say “no”. The filthy minx.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Don the Kiwi (1,750 comments) says:

    There are already proponents in Sweden pressing for the legal ability to “marry” their beloved pet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. mavxp (483 comments) says:

    Ryan replied at 12:37pm: “Adoption’s one at the moment, I believe. But the semantics are bad too. They represent the state treating one group of people differently from another for no good reason. To a large degree, it’s the imposition of one (or some) religions’ values on the entire populace, via the machinery of the state. It should not do that.”

    I agree with the state not imposing or favouring one religion over another. In that sense I am a secularist. But we need to be careful here not to fight a culture war when one can simply be avoided. The “civil union” is a nice compromise IMHO to avoid such a conflict. Both ‘sides’ in this conflict paint themselves (and may generally feel) as though they are being attacked by the tyrrany of the majority. If the argument is the adoption laws need updating to include civil unions then that is perhaps where the proposed changes should be made, rather than changing the state definition of “marriage” to something not accepted by the populace.

    It appears there is genuine fear among conservatives that following this change in definition, the state will be used to impose on religious institutions who celebrate marriages to also celebrate same sex unions against their fundamental beliefs. Do you agree this line should not be crossed by the state?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @mavxp at 12:28

    You won’t get an answer Max.
    Tried to ask those questions before.
    Even some of the more sensible commenters seem to turn to false analogies or just ad hominems.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Ryan Sproull (7,136 comments) says:

    It appears there is genuine fear among conservatives that following this change in definition, the state will be used to impose on religious institutions who celebrate marriages to also celebrate same sex unions against their fundamental beliefs. Do you agree this line should not be crossed by the state?

    Absolutely that line should not be crossed. Forcing Christians to perform same-sex marriages is as bad as selectively applying “marriage” as a legal term to only straight couples.

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

    “Lee
    Those who believe in the sky fairy are the ones in need of medication.”

    Perhaps. But then I don’t believe in the sky fairy, I believe in the Living God.

    “Seriously Lee, have you ever had an original thought in your life?”

    Far more than you I bet.

    “are you that simple that you have never questioned the work of fiction that you choose to live your life by?”

    I used to be an atheist. I became a Christian by asking questions. Having original thoughts and asking questions is how I discovered the Bible is not a work of fiction.

    “the religious right will still be bigots and small minded fools.”

    Funny, bigoted small minded fool sounds like you.

    ” the Catholic church will still protect paedophiles”

    The Catholic Church protected homosexuals who liked teenage boys.

    Also, I’m not a Catholic. Your very confused aren’t you.

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

    Forcing misguided religious institutions to marry people is a dumb idaea; maybe that’s why no one seems to be proposing it. Eventually those churches will simply adapt their beliefs, as they have done over the centuries to remain relevant to a changing society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Danyl Mclauchlan (1,069 comments) says:

    Relax guys – the Marriage Equality bill won’t make it legal for y’all to have sex with children or animals, so the stability of your own marriages won’t be threatened.

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

    “Finally as Polygamy (and other bizarre practices) are endorsed by the Christian bible”

    Not really true. The Biblical definition of marriage is ‘one man, one women become one flesh’. Polygamy was a corruption due to sin, one that was corrected by Christ when he affirmed the ‘one flesh’ definition given by God.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    Why are homosexual lobbyists so dishonest? I seen Charles Chauval on TV claiming two thirds of New Zealanders support homosexual marriage. If he and his lot genuinely believed that he would not have a problem with a binding referendum. Most liberals only beleive in referenda why that are almost certain it will go their way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Don the Kiwi (846) Says:
    July 30th, 2012 at 1:11 pm

    There are already proponents in Sweden pressing for the legal ability to “marry” their beloved pet.

    Raping a pet/child does not equal love.

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

    “It appears there is genuine fear among conservatives that following this change in definition, the state will be used to impose on religious institutions who celebrate marriages to also celebrate same sex unions against their fundamental beliefs. ”

    The fear is valid, because that is already hapenning if parts of Europe. The supposedly “conservative” PM of Britain is warning Churches that they must change their views.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Lee01,

    I don’t believe in the sky fairy, I believe in the Living God.

    Semantics. Can you show us this Living God or is he hiding with the Taniwha and the Lochness Monster?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Jimmy Smits (246 comments) says:

    kowtow (2,366) Says:
    July 30th, 2012 at 12:18 pm

    jimmy smits,1156,Jesus and marriage.

    See Mathew19 3-9.

    Man and woman, and based on Genesis “at the beginning ‘made them male and female’.”

    So jimmy et al, Jesus was an anti gay bigot and so is God.

    Well, given that he is the head of Christianity – of course. Which is why I think Christianity is ridiculous and that their followers are often homophobic old people who are probably going to die out within the next generation. Thankfully, the new generation of young adult Christians are more progressive in their thinking and do not have the same level of angst against homosexuality as their parents.

    I find it also ironic that the verses you quote has Jesus saying adultery is the only reason why two people can get divorced. So obviously domestic violence is not covered – let no man separate what God has put together, of course. Furthermore, there are no shortage of Christian leaders who are on their second marriages, which Jesus strongly condemns in that passage. Name any successful Christian leader and chances are their first marriage failed and they’re on their second or third – take Newt Gingrich, for example.

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

    “Raping a pet/child does not equal love.”

    Thats shocking bigotry and intolerance! How dare you descriminate against bestiality preactitioners and pedophiles!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    John Key is dead right. Allowing gay people to get married will not make homosexuality compulsory, nor will it make any difference to those heterosexual couples who are already married.

    There is no reasoned argument against allowing gays to marry, those who are against the idea are either religious fools, bigots or are unsure of their own sexuality.

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

    “I think Christianity is ridiculous and that their followers are often homophobic old people who are probably going to die out within the next generation.”

    Around then thousand new people convert to Christianity around the world every day. I don’t think we are dying out just yet.

    “Thankfully, the new generation of young adult Christians are more progressive in their thinking”

    They are actually far more conservative. The Churches with the largest numbers of youth are conservative evangelical.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    “I used to be an atheist. I became a Christian by asking questions. Having original thoughts and asking questions is how I discovered the Bible is not a work of fiction.”

    Given your contribution here today I can only assume they questions you asked were really dumb ones.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Lee01,

    I never claimed an aversion to intolerance and discrimination per se. Simply that the government should not engage in it or endorse it without just cause: harm to the animal/child is a just cause.

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

    “There is no reasoned argument against allowing gays to marry”

    There is no reasoned argument for it. It’s just mindless liberal dogma.

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

    “I never claimed an aversion to intolerance and discrimination per se. ”

    Yeah, thats called hypocrisy and dishonest argumentation.

    “Simply that the government should not engage in it or endorse it without just cause”

    Cause according to who?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @Chuck

    Nobody here (or anywhere else on the web) has been able to tell me why it is suddenly so important to change Civil Unions into Marriages. Apart from false analogies I am still waiting to hear a reasoned motivation (I won’t hold my breath).
    If on the other hand a majority of New Zealanders want to change the meaning of marriage because that makes them feel good or so they can stick it to those who believe in ‘sky fairies’ (Those seem to be the overriding reasons) I am not too worried.
    Have a binding referendum.
    Why not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    Lee

    “Around then thousand new people convert to Christianity around the world every day. I don’t think we are going anywhere.”

    Got proof of that or is this another blatant lie?

    Everything I see (with the exception of the stupid people in the USA) would suggest that religion is becoming less and less a part of our society, of course this is a great thing, the more people who wake up and see religion for the evil that it is the better.

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

    “Given your contribution here today I can only assume they questions you asked were really dumb ones.”

    Coming from someone who does not advance any remotely intellectual, well reasoned arguments, but just calls people he disagrees with “stupid” I can only assume that you are….well, stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Are the Keys still married? We never see her.

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

    “Semantics. Can you show us this Living God or is he hiding with the Taniwha and the Lochness Monster?”

    Not semantics. Accurate definition.

    And He will show Himself to you if you really want Him to do so. But attempting to show a blind man a sunset is pointless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Jimmy Smits (246 comments) says:

    Lee01 (2,056) Says:
    July 30th, 2012 at 1:24 pm

    Around then thousand new people convert to Christianity around the world every day. I don’t think we are dying out just yet.

    They are actually far more conservative. The Churches with the largest numbers of youth are conservative evangelical.

    Funny how they happen to be from oppressive countries like China and Africa and are less educated village people who are influenced by missionaries who promise them everything they don’t have. Give them some economic development and a decent standard of living and you’ll see religious numbers fall drastically.

    Secondly, a friend took me to Life Church in Auckland – probably the largest evangelical Church with youth. After about two hours of power pop music I spoke to some of the other young adults about homosexuality (I brought it up when they asked if if I was a newcomer to Church and what I thought about Christianity – I responded that I wasn’t a Christian because Christianity is often on the wrong side of the fence on social issues, including homosexuality) – they were quick to try and dodge the topic or just say Jesus loves everyone and that all sins are bad, including lying. So basically trying to compare sexuality with lying as if it’s no big deal and everyone does it, God isn’t as angry about it as say murder or kidnapping. Of course I doubt their pastors share their views but then again their pastors are just like you – out of touch with the youth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. James Stephenson (2,176 comments) says:

    Finally as Polygamy (and other bizarre practices) are endorsed by the Christian bible I’m uncertain as to why this is perpetualy raised as a objection.

    What’s “bizarre” about polygamy? If the argument that the “marriage equality” (I’d really like some equality in my marriage, please :D) crowd are pushing is that the state shouldn’t restrict marriage to only heterosexual couples, why should it arbitrarily restrict it to only two people?

    That’s not an argument against, or an objection to, gay marriage. It’s a logical extension of the argument being made. If one bloke and two chicks “love each other” and wish to enter into a legal contract together, they should be allowed to.

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

    Weihana: Ok, so how about a specific amendment which says that religious institutions have the right to discriminate in offering marriage services on the grounds of sexual orientation?

    How’s that working out in England and Europe? Or try to run a fast food business in Boston. The way it’s working everywhere, and here too, is that certain people and businesses will be very carefully targeted. You won’t be able to stay neutral, you must be pro-gay, else you will be destroyed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Lee01 (2,056) Says:
    July 30th, 2012 at 1:28 pm

    “I never claimed an aversion to intolerance and discrimination per se. ”

    Yeah, thats called hypocrisy and dishonest argumentation.

    “Simply that the government should not engage in it or endorse it without just cause”

    Cause according to who?

    According to anyone who can make a reasonable argument. So far I haven’t seen any. “It’s about procreation” isn’t because you ignore infertile couples. “Religious freedom is under attack” is likewise not a reasonable argument because this particular issue has nothing to do with religious freedom, and indeed at least a couple people here openly support the notion that religious institutions should retain their freedom to practice as they are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    “And He will show Himself to you if you really want Him to do so.”

    Ha ha…moonbat alert!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:


    Lee01 (2,058) Says:
    July 30th, 2012 at 1:31 pm

    “Semantics. Can you show us this Living God or is he hiding with the Taniwha and the Lochness Monster?”

    Not semantics. Accurate definition.

    And He will show Himself to you if you really want Him to do so. But attempting to show a blind man a sunset is pointless.

    Wanna buy some magic beans?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. alloytoo (542 comments) says:

    @LEE

    “Not really true. The Biblical definition of marriage is ‘one man, one women become one flesh’. Polygamy was a corruption due to sin, one that was corrected by Christ when he affirmed the ‘one flesh’ definition given by God.”

    By this logic Leviticus should have long since been thrown out.

    Can’t have it both ways, either all the old testament applies or none of it applies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    berend,

    How’s that working out in England and Europe? Or try to run a fast food business in Boston.

    No idea. It’s irrelevant. That others are acting unreasonably is no excuse to act likewise.

    But as an aside, what is the story with Chick-Fil-A in Boston? I was only aware that the mayor didn’t want them to locate in Boston. Is there an official ban?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    James Stephenson (981) Says:
    July 30th, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    Not that I oppose polygamous marriages, or have any opinion one way or the other, but there is a difference in terms of making it so that benefits/immigration rules etc. aren’t exploited. e.g. I don’t care if Mohammed has 8 wives. They all shouldn’t get a visa for partnership.

    So there is some justified discrimination with regards to multiple partners because the practical effect of treating them exactly the same is to, in effect, grant them MORE rights than everyone else.

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

    For Big Bruv’s education:

    “For 27 years, the International Bulletin of Missionary Research has published an annual “Status of Global Mission” report, which attempts to quantify the world Christian reality, comparing Christianity’s circumstances to those of other faiths, and assaying how Christianity’s various expressions are faring when measured against the recent (and not-so-recent) past. The report is unfailingly interesting, sometimes jarring, and occasionally provocative.

    The provocation in the 2011 report involves martyrdom. For purposes of research, the report defines “martyrs” as “believers in Christ who have lost their lives, prematurely, in situations of witness, as a result of human hostility.” The report estimates that there were, on average, 270 new Christian martyrs every 24 hours over the past decade, such that “the number of martyrs [in the period 2000-2010] was approximately 1 million.” Compare this to an estimated 34,000 Christian martyrs in 1900.

    As for the interesting, try the aggregate numbers. According to the report, there will be, by mid-2011, 2,306,609,000 Christians of all kinds in the world, representing 33 percent of world population—a slight percentage rise from mid-2000 (32.7 percent), but a slight percentage drop since 1900 (34.5 percent). Of those 2.3 billion Christians, some 1.5 billion are regular church attendees, who worship in 5,171,000 congregations or “worship centers,” up from 400,000 in 1900 and 3.5 million in 2000.

    These 2.3 billion Christians can be divided into six “ecclesiastical megablocks”: 1,160,880,000 Catholics; 426,450,000 Protestants; 271,316,000 Orthodox; 87,520,000 Anglicans; 378,281,000 “Independents” (i.e., those separated from or unaffiliated with historic denominational Christianity); and 35,539,000 “marginal Christians” (i.e., those professing off-brand Trinitarian theology, dubious Christology, or a supplementary written revelation beyond the Bible).

    Compared to the world’s 2.3 billion Christians, there are 1.6 billion Muslims, 951 million Hindus, 468 million Buddhists, 458 million Chinese folk-religionists, and 137 million atheists, whose numbers have actually dropped over the past decade, despite the caterwauling of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Co. One cluster of comparative growth statistics is striking: As of mid-2011, there will be an average of 80,000 new Christians per day (of whom 31,000 will be Catholics) and 79,000 new Muslims per day, but 300 fewer atheists every 24 hours.

    Africa has been the most stunning area of Christian growth over the past century. There were 8.7 million African Christians in 1900 (primarily in Egypt, Ethiopia and South Africa); there are 475 million African Christians today and their numbers are projected to reach 670 million by 2025. Another astonishing growth spurt, measured typologically, has been among Pentecostals and charismatics: 981,000 in 1900; 612,472,000 in 2011, with an average of 37,000 new adherents every day—the fastest growth in two millennia of Christian history.”

    http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/02/christian-number-crunching

    http://www.internationalbulletin.org/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Ryan Sproull (7,136 comments) says:

    Christianity is the largest religion in the world.

    http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

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

    “According to anyone who can make a reasonable argument”
    Weihana “reasonable argument” according to who?

    The problem is you keep claiming objective reason for your subjective opinions.

    Alloytoo

    “By this logic Leviticus should have long since been thrown out.

    Can’t have it both ways, either all the old testament applies or none of it applies.”

    Not true. The Old Testa,ment civil law was only for the Kingdom of Israel and was temporary. Christ fulfilled and replaced it. Thus while the OT is still valid as the first part of the story of God’s mission to redeem humanity. Christians are not bound to its civil and ritual laws, as Jesus makes it clear they are no longer functioning. Thats why we don;t so animal sacrifices in the Jerusalem Temple.

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

    There is no reasoned argument against allowing gays to marry

    There may be factor against gay marriage, if it is a stepping stone to gay couples adopting, as there appears to be nothing much supporting gay adoption as an acceptable option for society or the responsibility Government takes in that area.

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

    Weihana,

    What is hapenning in Euorpe is not irrelevant, because the same authoritarian liberalism is operative here in NZ, and the NZ Left in particular tend to follow European treands.

    Obtuseness, denial and naievity are not “well reasoned” arguments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Lee01,

    137 million atheists, whose numbers have actually dropped over the past decade, despite the caterwauling of
    Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Co…

    Such figures should be taken with a grain of salt for a number of reasons. In my view it is more important to measure non-religious rather than explicitly atheist. Moreover, many of those who express religious affiliation are often very agnostic in reality despite the affiliation. There are plenty of people who appreciate the virtues of religious communities (identity, charity, values etc.) even if they do not sincerely believe in the mythical tales.

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

    By for now folks. I have an assignment due.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. James Stephenson (2,176 comments) says:

    Not that I oppose polygamous marriages, or have any opinion one way or the other, but there is a difference in terms of making it so that benefits/immigration rules etc. aren’t exploited. e.g. I don’t care if Mohammed has 8 wives. They all shouldn’t get a visa for partnership.

    I’d say that’s a problem for the benefits/immigration rules, in precisely they same way as gay adoption is a problem for the civil union legislation, rather than something that should be trojan-horsed via this gay marriage debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. alloytoo (542 comments) says:

    @lee

    Make up your mind Lee. Endorse love your neighbour or Leviticus.

    You can’t have it both ways.

    Some of us can however have it neither.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Lee01,

    Weihana “reasonable argument” according to who?

    According to whomever. I am merely conveying to you a framework for discussion, goal posts if you like. The reasons themselves must be addressed individually on their own terms.

    The problem is you keep claiming objective reason for your subjective opinions.

    Well no, I provided two examples of reasons your ilk have given and objective reasons they are invalid. Again, if it were about procreation then marriage wouldn’t apply to infertile couples. The fact that it does objectively demonstrates that marriage isn’t about procreation.

    Further, a law which recognizes gay marriage has no implication for religious freedom. You are anticipating events unrelated to the law in question. You may be right that those evil liberals will come down on you and prohibit you from discriminating on the basis of one’s homosexuality. But that is a separate issue not directly relevant to the proposed law change.

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

    Weihana, please tell me: what will become of marriage celebrants who refuse to marry gays?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Ryan Sproull (7,136 comments) says:

    Nothing. Marriage celebrants should be free to refuse to marry gay couples, interracial couples, couples who aren’t their religion – any couple that doesn’t fit their religious beliefs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    Lee

    I asked for proof, I did not ask for propaganda from discredited religious organisations.

    See Lee, that is the thing, not one of you religious bigots can provide any proof for the claims you make on the numbers surrounding religion, yet you are the very ones who ask us to prove that the sky fairy does not exist.

    Has it not entered your closed and tiny mind that those of us who see religion as the root of all evil do not trust anything that the church (or any religious organisation) says.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. James Stephenson (2,176 comments) says:

    Marriage celebrants should…

    The question berend asked was “What will become of…”, which is a completely different thing when dealing with “badge of right-on-ness” issues like this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. alloytoo (542 comments) says:

    @Berend

    _”Weihana, please tell me: what will become of marriage celebrants who refuse to marry gays?”

    Berend, please tell me: what will become of marriage celebrants who refuse to marry Pagans, atheists, Hindus and Jews?

    Answer is : Nothing. Marraige celebrants are hired guns.

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

    Ryan Sproull: Nothing. Marriage celebrants should be free to refuse to marry gay couples, interracial couples, couples who aren’t their religion – any couple that doesn’t fit their religious beliefs.

    Again, how has that worked out in every country that has introduced gay marriage? Keep dreaming, that’s not how this game is played. This is not just about gay marriage, it’s about destroying those who disagree, and excluding them from every sphere of public life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Ryan Sproull (7,136 comments) says:

    Again, how has that worked out in every country that has introduced gay marriage? Keep dreaming, that’s not how this game is played. This is not just about gay marriage, it’s about destroying those who disagree, and excluding them from every sphere of public life.

    That is not a compelling reason not to do what is right. That is a compelling reason to do what is right and ensure that the wrong thing you’re talking about does not occur.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull (5,009) Says:
    July 30th, 2012 at 2:10 pm

    +1

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

    alloytoo: Berend, please tell me: what will become of marriage celebrants who refuse to marry Pagans, atheists, Hindus and Jews?

    Nothing. No one has any objection against marrying a man and a woman. Whatever their persuasion is. A Christian happily will marry a couple whatever their persuasion. Because, get it, marriage IS NOT RELIGIOUS (well, except if you’re roman catholic).

    This is going to be different. And we know that, because every country that has tried it, has in the end excluded those who object against marrying gay people.

    It won’t be different here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. adamsmith1922 (890 comments) says:

    Whole thing is a non issue, cannot understand what the fuss is all about.

    There are far more important things to worry about than this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Manolo (13,755 comments) says:

    adamsmith1922 at 2.36 pm
    There are far more important things to worry about than this.

    +100

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Ryan Sproull (7,136 comments) says:

    Nothing. No one has any objection against marrying a man and a woman. Whatever their persuasion is. A Christian happily will marry a couple whatever their persuasion. Because, get it, marriage IS NOT RELIGIOUS (well, except if you’re roman catholic).

    Marriage is religious for a lot of people, and the state should not force a religious celebrant to act against their religious beliefs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    berend,

    …because every country that has tried it, has in the end excluded those who object against marrying gay people.

    What do you mean by “excluded”? Example?

    And BTW, do you support the right of individuals to discriminate on the basis of race if they hold a sincere belief in that regard?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. kowtow (8,449 comments) says:

    ryan sproull

    What makes same sex marriage “right” ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. alloytoo (542 comments) says:

    @Berend

    What utter nonsense.

    Marriages are performed by contract for a consideration. Contract law applies, and that includes not taking up a contract.

    Priests will not, under commercial law, be obligated to contract with Gay couples. (though no doubt they will accept their Tiths).

    But please do be specific, of the eleven countries (Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden) which allow same-sex couples to marry nationwide, which of them force Christian priests to perform gay marriage? (make that ten, I know the South African doesn’t)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Ryan Sproull (7,136 comments) says:

    What makes same sex marriage “right” ?

    Amending discriminatory legislation is right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    It appears that the opposition have taken out the Protect Marriage web site and petition. If they are prepared to resort to those sort of tactics now. How long do you think it will be before hate speech comes in if Labour are in power. One will just have to point out the facts about HIV to get sent to a re-education camp.

    Why are the likes of Louisa Wall and Charles Chauvel not prepared to debate the issue with Bob McCoskrie?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Similar to a few regular commenters here, Bob McCoskrie is trying to bring a non-issue into the debate.

    If McCoskrie reads the bill he will see that it doesn’t include “polygamous, polyamorous and incestuous adult unions”.

    The only slippery slope is the slide to more ludicrous and irrelevant scaremongering. This makes it easy to ridicule the anti side of the argument as just a bunch of nutters, making any attempt at reasonable debate on real pros and cons just about impossible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Chuck – I’m wary of jumping to conclusions on the Protect Marriage website going down.

    If it is being attacked I’d condemn that, but it’s quite possible it just couldn’t handle the levels of traffic, and it’s also possible the claims of deliberate attack are more for publicity seeking than based on facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. kowtow (8,449 comments) says:

    What discrimination is there?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    Pete, if you are correct why would one of the two MPs I mentioned just jump at the chance to make Bob McCoskrie look like a nutter.

    Incidentally, I do not think you really listened to his point. It is that if the proponents of same sex marriage were consistent they would support polygamous, polyamorous and incestuous adult unions if they would consistent as the same arguments apply.

    Why are these arrogant MPs not prepared to let the voters have the final say. Is because they thing the majority of New Zealanders are nutters of just stupid?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. kowtow (8,449 comments) says:

    See it’s all about human rights and discrimination.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2180798/Would-YOU-16-year-old-wanted-change-sex-How-Miranda-Parram-fighting-sons-human-right-wear-make-up.html

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

    What Brian Smaller said yesterday covers it all.

    Brian Smaller (3,644) Says:
    July 28th, 2012 at 4:36 pm

    80% of us already know what those in parliament think of democracy, so stop bringing it up.
    This is about access to our children pure and simple.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Jvs (1 comment) says:

    Unlike Lee, who can only reference a biased, non-independant study that was created by a reverand of the church and is run by the Overseas Ministry Study Centre, who’s byline reads “Strengthening the Christian World Mission” (Seriously, could you get any more biased?) – I will reference a legit study by an agnostic, independent organisation that I would hope everyone on this forum would trust – Statistics New Zealand.
    While it is not on a world scale, sure, it is accurate. Non-religious folk make up almost 35% of the population (2006), up from 29% (2001). Christians make up 55% of the population, down from 60%.
    What I find interesting is the age makeup. Basically Christians are dying out. All the old people make up the majority of the Christian society. In 2006, almost 50% of the 20-30 year old age bracket had no religion. I can’t wait till next years census to see how this has changed.
    Source (You know.. a legitimate one): http://alturl.com/98hwt

    Sorry if not entirely on topic. It just annoys me when someone uses “references” that are more biased than themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (2,390) Says:
    July 30th, 2012 at 3:29 pm

    It appears that the opposition have taken out the Protect Marriage web site and petition. If they are prepared to resort to those sort of tactics now. How long do you think it will be before hate speech comes in if Labour are in power. One will just have to point out the facts about HIV to get sent to a re-education camp.

    Umm Chuck, do I have to point out the obvious? Democracy isn’t run according to how many denial of service attacks you can mount. The fact that someone is attacking a website using such tactics (as they do every day for a variety of reasons against a variety of websites) has no logical implications for what our democratically elected parliament will decide to do.

    Do you not think you are being a wee bit paranoid?

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

    The only thing that will undermine anyone’s marriage are the choices and actions of those within the marriage. If Adam and Steve want down the road want to get married, it’ll do nothing to undermine your marriage. If you can’t keep your dick in your pants and you cheat on your wife, that’s the real threat. Mind your own damn business and keep your own damn backyard clean. Don’t rain on everyone else’s parade.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    kowtow (2,373) Says:
    July 30th, 2012 at 3:38 pm

    What discrimination is there?

    Marriage, at present, is only recognized for a man and woman rather than gay couples. The practical effect of this, as far as I know, is limited to adoption. But even if that wasn’t an issue it would still be objectionable as much as if different terminology was used to describe an interracial relationship.

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

    “it would still be objectionable”

    To liberals and cultural Marxists. But not objectionable in any objective sense.

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

    “And BTW, do you support the right of individuals to discriminate on the basis of race if they hold a sincere belief in that regard?”

    Yes. I wouldn’t agree with doing so myself, but that right should and must exist in a truly free society.

    “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.” — Hans-Hermann Hoppe

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Chuck,

    …if the proponents of same sex marriage were consistent they would support polygamous, polyamorous and incestuous adult unions if they would consistent as the same arguments apply.

    First, it’s not about “supporting” any relationship. It is not my business to support any one else’s relationship. The issue is state recognition and equality before the law. I agree that polygamous, polyamorous and incestuous adult unions shouldn’t be subject to state sanction so I accept that argument. However, it is not quite true to say that all the same arguments apply regarding legal recognition of those relationships.

    Partnerships involving more than two partners requires a re-evaluation of rules pertaining to the benefits and rights involved in a state recognized partnership. The rules are not necessarily easily transferred. For instance, if one partner is in critical condition who gets to decide on medical treatment if there is a disagreement among partners? Further, for incestuous couples the prospect of genetic defects amongst their children raises questions which do not exist in the context of polygamous, homosexual or heterosexual unions.

    This is not an argument against government recognition of such partnerships per se, just saying that the arguments are not immediately transferable.

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

    big bruv,

    “I asked for proof, I did not ask for propaganda from discredited religious organisations.”

    Actually the figures are verifiable, and accurate, and have been backed up by secular academic studies. But you DON’T want “proof” at all.

    Show me the proof that the IBMR is a “descredited” organisation. And I do mean proof, not your fact free rantings.

    “Has it not entered your closed and tiny mind that those of us who see religion as the root of all evil do not trust anything that the church (or any religious organisation) says.”

    Read that last statement again, then reflect on what is a “closed and tiny mind”, and then look in the mirror.

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

    “What is true, just, and beautiful is not determined by popular vote. The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, motivated by envy, and easy to fool. Democratic politicians must appeal to these masses in order to be elected. Whoever is the best demagogue will win. Almost by necessity, then, democracy will lead to the perversion of truth, justice and beauty.”

    Hanse-Hermann Hoppe

    http://www.hanshoppe.com/

    http://propertyandfreedom.org/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    kowtow (2,373) Says:
    July 30th, 2012 at 4:07 pm

    From your link:

    “Would YOU back your 16-year-old if he wanted to change sex?”

    Yes I would. It would be quite evident from 16 years of age that this desire to be a woman was genuine and motivated by the individual and not outside pressure (as if anyone would pressure someone to change their gender). A parent would know after 16 years what their child was like. Gender identity is hard-wired into our brains and trying to force a gender upon an individual when they are not comfortable with it can only be harmful in my view.

    My only concern is that this person knows that they will never truly be a woman unless some dramatic advances in medical technology occur. They should know that the fact they feel and appear like a woman will not make others regard them in the same way even if they are understanding and compassionate towards their situation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    #McCoskrieSlope – gay marriage will slip to “polygamous, polyamorous and incestuous adult unions”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Jimmy Smits (246 comments) says:

    berend (1,096) Says:
    July 30th, 2012 at 2:28 pm

    Again, how has that worked out in every country that has introduced gay marriage? Keep dreaming, that’s not how this game is played. This is not just about gay marriage, it’s about destroying those who disagree, and excluding them from every sphere of public life.

    OK OK, I admit, the real reason we want to legalise gay marriage is because we are pedophiles who want to progressively make it legal to eventually rape little boys in the ass, all whilst destroying the sanctity of Christianity by forcing Christians to be stoned to death if they are homophobic. Furthermore, it wasn’t about gay marriage all along, but the crowding out of straight marriages, which will one day be made illegal because they are discriminatory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    Where is you quote from Pete?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    Weihana

    Wanna buy some magic beans?

    Don’t you mean mushrooms?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    Lee01

    And He will show Himself to you if you really want Him to do so.

    Will he promise to keep his trousers on?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Chuck: http://www.3news.co.nz/Gay-marriage-bill-stirs-heated-debate/tabid/1607/articleID/263192/Default.aspx

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. wat dabney (3,756 comments) says:

    What is the collective noun for a group a bigots? A sputtering?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    “What is the collective noun for a group a bigots?”

    You have a choice of two. Either “a religion” or “a church”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. kowtow (8,449 comments) says:

    Radio NZ news quotes a woman from the Queer Avengers saying they want marriage for the many various typpes of love and that until that happens there will still be discrimination.

    We can’t have inequality or discrimination so anything goes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    You have to hand it to Bob McCoskrie. He has managed to convince the stupid and lazy NZ media that there is an organisation called Family First.

    The reality I suspect is that there is no such organisation at all, “Family First” is the work of Bob McCoskrie and only Bob McCoskrie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. wat dabney (3,756 comments) says:

    What’s the collective noun for a group of repressed homosexuals who could “choose to be gay.”

    The Conservative Party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    This whole ‘gay-marrige’ debate seems to follow the usual ‘progressive’ strategy.
    Alinsky would be proud.

    1. Flood the domain.
    2. Astro-turfing.
    3. Demonise the opposition using false analogies.
    4. Close down the debate using ‘direct action’.
    5. Threaten the ‘opposition’ with violence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. wat dabney (3,756 comments) says:

    Threaten you with logic more like.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Redbaiter (8,810 comments) says:

    Nope, logic is the one strategy you haven’t used.

    Liberals never can use it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. wat dabney (3,756 comments) says:

    ooh, those marxists make me so mad!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    other andy

    Four of the five examples you use are exactly what the anti gay marriage bigots are doing.

    The usual nutbars (D4J as an example) is threatening all and sundry with violence (mind you i suspect in his case it is a repressed homosexual desire he is dealing with)
    We have seen the ridiculous example from McCoskrie who suggests that incest will be next in line.

    No andy, the bullshit is coming from the bigots.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Redbaiter (8,810 comments) says:

    “ooh, those marxists make me so mad!”

    See what I mean?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @wat dabney

    “Threaten you with logic more like.”

    Sorry wat, haven’t seen any of that.
    Please convince me*.
    I have an open mind.

    * Be serious, don’t use false analogies such as ‘inter-racial marriage’ or the ‘civil rights’ movement.
    Civil Union was ‘sold’ under the banner of equal rights. The reasoning behind the ‘civil union’ legislation was logical and I had no problem with that. If ‘civil unions’ was about equal rights, what is this about?

    @BB

    “….anti gay marriage bigots…”

    Well, you have me convinced, well done…..
    Pick the target, freeze it, personalise it, polarise it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    Andy

    You do seem like a reasonable chap. Tell me, what business is it of yours if two gays want to marry? How will that have an affect on your life?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Redbaiter (8,810 comments) says:

    Dunno why any of you guys need to argue the point with BB, a clapped out used car salesman from Cambridge who sells bogged up rusted out and clocked heaps of Japanese shit to gullible welfare beneficiaries and other wood ducks who sign up to shylock style hire purchase contracts and soon after have the car repossessed ‘cos they can’t keep the payments up.

    You need to be sophisticated, have some principles and be reasonably intelligent to understand the argument that underpins opposition to homosexuals invading and redefining the institution of heterosexual marriage.

    Bigot Bruv’s whole style of argument is to ask dumb falsely premised questions or issue demands for proof of some disconnected or manufactured theory, and then never accept any answers he receives anyway.

    My advice is don’t waste your time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    “No andy, the bullshit is coming from the bigots.”

    BB, you are right. Just look in a mirror.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    Pete, sorry I did not see the quote at your link. Use bold to quote what you claimed Bob said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @BB

    “Tell me, what business is it of yours if two gays want to marry? How will that have an affect on your life?”

    You are turning the debate around. You want to change the status quo so you need to come up with the reasons why.
    Also, there are lots of things that have no direct affect on my life, that doesn’t mean I cannot have a personal opinion on those things.
    I am more than happy to change my opinion (not that it matters much) but only if somebody can come up with the reasoned arguments. As I previously stated, I haven’t seen any yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Aredhel777 (290 comments) says:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10823280

    Tolerance in action! I expect an imminent post from DPF (not really.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    bruv, do you want every NZ child to have the optimum upbringing, one that statistically affords them the best chance of security, safety and ultimately a successful life as a NZ citizen? If you do, then the institution that is most valuable in delivering that outcome is a life-long, committed marriage between a father and mother. Changing marriage to mean any relationship between any group of people or objects (certainly the end-game if the cry of discrimination follows its course), lessens the significance of the optimum relationship. You and others mightn’t like the notion that you’re not noted for being in the optimum relationship type for child rearing, but part of being a grown-up society is being ok with that and doing your best. Like everyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    other andy

    How am I turning the debate around?

    It does not matter to me at all if two gays want to marry, hell it does not matter to me how or if they have sex. I fail to see why they should be denied the right to get married.

    It is simply none of our business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. kowtow (8,449 comments) says:

    aredhel

    you beat me to it. Stuff website are calling the Family First website “homophobic” on the tab or whatever it’s called.

    So you have a free speech attack as well as the media framing the debate in terms of so called hate speech.

    There is no true debate in the post modern democracy. Faux human rights trumps all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    Redbaiter

    I must really be getting under your skin, that is a good thing.

    Now old chap, have you manged to come up with one thing you have achieved in your ten year war against the left?….have you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    I wonder who both Key and DPF would prefer as a coalition partner for National – NZF or the Conservative Party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Aredhel777 (290 comments) says:

    Redbaiter is the greatest poster on this whole website. His posts make the whole thing worth reading.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    KK

    Straw man argument. You need to do better than that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. kowtow (8,449 comments) says:

    Simply one of our business.
    Well if bigot bruv decrees that no one should be interested in ,discuss ,debate,etc what is going on in our society, legally,culturally,socially,economically then that’s it we should all just shut up and butt out.

    bruv says so.

    As a non Catholic he will now stop making references to same.None of his business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    kowtow

    Ah, there you are wrong. The catholic church is an evil organisation and needs to be exposed and ridiculed at each and every opportunity.Crimes are being committed every day in the name of the Catholic church, that cannot be allowed to happen.

    Two poofs wanting to get married is hardly evil or something to get all bitter and twisted about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Chuck, this is from a Family First press release:

    “Equality does not mean we must redefine marriage. Same-sex couples have the option of civil unions to recognise their relationship so there is no need for redefining marriage.

    If the law was redefined to allow same-sex marriage, and only same-sex marriage, we would then be discriminating against those seeking, for example, polygamous, polyamorous, or adult incest unions.

    If we are going to have a debate about same-sex marriage and liberalising adoption laws, it is essential that the politicians acknowledge just how far this is going to go,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1207/S00388/website-to-protect-marriage-launched.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    Just a little bit off topic but I think Maggie Barry had a point. I get highly pissed off at people without children pushing legislation that will put our children and/or grandchildren at risk.

    We already have Rainbow Youth and other deviants going into schools giving so called sex education and with the odd bit of recruiting. With the PM giving his stamp of approval to this deviant lifestyle more adolescents will be abused. Key claims to have a conscience. If he has he would stick to his word on issues that will not cost him more votes than he will again. He said if good parents were prosecuted for smacking the children he would change the law. He also promised there would not likely be more social engineering under a National government. He has broke his word on both these issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    Pete, thanks for the full quote and the link.

    However, I think you are drawing a long bow to say the quote you linked to is the same as your quote below.

    McCoskrieSlope – gay marriage will slip to “polygamous, polyamorous and incestuous adult unions”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @BB

    “How am I turning the debate around?”

    You want to change the status quo so you need to come up with the reasons why.
    Another example. At the moment nobody (or everbody) own the water. The Maori council just stated they own the water. They need to come up with the logical argument to chnage the status quo.

    “It does not matter to me at all if two gays want to marry, hell it does not matter to me how or if they have sex. I fail to see why they should be denied the right to get married.”

    Because the status quo is that marriage is between a man and a woman. If you want a different combination with the same legal rights you go for civil union. Why do they want to call it marriage?

    “It is simply none of our business.”

    As I said before, lots of things are ‘none of our business’ but that doesn’t mean I can’t have an opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. kowtow (8,449 comments) says:

    big bruv are you saying you are bitter and twisted on account of an evil worldwide criminal organisation that never did anything personlly to you?

    I believe you are simply a bigot of the old school who hates Catholicism and can conveniently use the sex abuse scandal to excuse and justify your very obvious pathological hatred.

    Marriage is the exclusive domain of males to females,it cannot by definition and ancient practise be anything other.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    Andy

    I am not denying you the right to have an opinion. Only people like Redbaiter want to do that.

    The status quo once upon a time was that shelia’s could not vote, the status quo at one time was that you could keep slaves, the status quo was that it was illegal for men to be gay.

    We changed all those because they were wrong, plain and simply wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Chuck – he has introduced things into the debate that have got nothing to do with what is in the proposed legislation. He’s deliberately exaggerating the possible outcome (a lot). That makes it easy for his opposition to not take him seriously.

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

    The argument for a change from the status quo is based on simple fairness.There is no difference in the status that should be given to relationships between consenting adults.
    Having said that, I’m still of the opinion that the Marriage Act should simply be repealed, as the state has no business in regulating personal relationships

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @CC

    One could make a very good case about polygamy, having cultural and historical precedents as opposed to gay marriage.
    I can’t see how people advocating ‘gay marriage’ could stop polygamy?
    “It is simply none of our business.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    kowtow

    Clearly you are a simpleton.

    I detest all religion equally, however all evidence would suggest that the worst religion of all (certainly the one who has done the most damage over the years) is the Catholic church, followed by (and a fair way behind) Islam.

    And please kowtow, I could have picked any of the disgusting things that the Catholic church has been a part of, the ongoing sex scandals were the easiest. I could of course have talked about the Rat lines, or I could have talked about the lie that is the Catholic church claiming to be a church of and for the poor when the reality is that they are bloody loaded.

    There is a lot to dislike about the Catholic church kowtow, if you opened your eyes you would be able to see it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @BB

    “We changed all those because they were wrong, plain and simply wrong.”

    You are going around in circles. You are using false analogies.
    All the examples you quoted were wrong and they were changed because good arguments could be made against them.
    I haven’t seen the arguments for ‘gay marriage’ yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. HB (321 comments) says:

    XavierG (49) Says:
    4:21 pm
    “The only thing that will undermine anyone’s marriage are the choices and actions of those within the marriage.”

    +1

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    @bb – not a strawman at all. But your call not to respond. Let me try this: What, other than the title of marriage is denied a same sex couple under NZ law? If it’s almost nothing, and given that the historical and/or religious value of this title is VERY important for some, surely allowing that distinction is just part of being tolerant?.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @BB

    Reading your comments here I am starting to see the possible reason for your stance regarding ‘gay marriage’.
    It sounds like your reason is ‘revenge’, an intense dislike of the Catholic church and the desire to stick it to the believers in ‘sky fairies’.
    This might be a good personal reason for advocating ‘gay marriage’ and I know that this is a reason shared by others but it isn’t a logical reason.

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

    BB’s claims about the supposed evils of the Catholic Church are based on his own psychological problems and pathological hatred, and not on the facts. And I say that as a Protestant.

    Now on go more important concerns.

    A group called Queer Avengers was just on RNZ saying that homosexual marriage is just the beginning of the “battle”.

    The next step is to extend marriage and adoption rights to polygamous and “polyamory” relations (whatever that is).

    This is the way a civilization ends.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. wat dabney (3,756 comments) says:

    So at the end of all this back and forth the original point remains entirely unrefuted; heterosexual marriage is in no way affected by allowing gays to marry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. Reid (16,447 comments) says:

    So at the end of all this back and forth the original point remains entirely unrefuted; heterosexual marriage is in no way affected by allowing gays to marry.

    Yes wat, it is. The fact you don’t see how, doesn’t change that. Why the heck would people object to it if that weren’t the case?

    Fucking d’oh, wat. Crikey. What sort of a mentalist are you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Why the heck would people object to it if that weren’t the case?

    Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt perhaps?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    kk

    “the historical and/or religious value of this title is VERY important for some, surely allowing that distinction is just part of being tolerant?.”

    So because some people choose to believe in middle eastern superstition you think that should deny all gay people of the right to marry?
    Does that suggest that religious people are just a tad precious?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Yvette (2,814 comments) says:

    big bruv –Two poofs wanting to get married is hardly evil or something to get all bitter and twisted about
    _______________________

    Especially if you have granted them civil union.
    However, ‘married’ is the stepping stone to adoption, and that is another question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    Lee

    “BB’s claims about the supposed evils of the Catholic Church are based on his own psychological problems and pathological hatred, and not on the facts.”

    Well documented facts at it happens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    other andy

    “false analogies”

    What was false about slavery, or chicks being denied the right to vote?

    The fact is that denying somebody the right to marry because they are gay is simply wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    wat – heterosexual marriage statistically represents the best place to raise children. Notwithstanding individual cases it’s safest and provides optimum social and education outcomes. Reason enough to let marriage retain a unique title and be valued as an optimum relationship type. That doesn’t stop gays having a civil union, and enjoying the protections that the law provides there. Why is it a big deal for gays? Life is full of distinctions: I can’t race in a junior class of cycling because I’m too old. I can’t use a ladies toilet because I’m a bloke. I can’t box in welterweight because I’m a fat bugger. I can’t join mensa because I’m not a genius. But I’m ok with all that. Why the seemingly pathological desire to have the title of ‘married’?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    Yvette

    Gay adoption is another argument altogether, and on that you may well find that you and I will be of the same mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Does that suggest that religious people are just a tad precious?

    Tell me what, other than the title of ‘married’, is currently denied gays? Many suspect that the title is the stepping stone to some other right. I can’t see that. Help me out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @BB

    big bruv (10,569) Says:

    “false analogies”
    What was false about slavery, or chicks being denied the right to vote?”

    Do you know what a false anology is?

    “The fact is that denying somebody the right to marry because they are gay is simply wrong.”

    Apart from telling me over and over again that it is wrong, you still haven’t given me a rational reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @big bruv

    “Gay adoption is another argument altogether, and on that you may well find that you and I will be of the same mind.”

    You completely lost me there.
    Using your own reasoning, how can you be against adoption by ‘gay couples’?
    Couldn’t you just say: ““The fact is that denying somebody the right to adopt because they are gay is simply wrong.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. Yvette (2,814 comments) says:

    krazykiwi – Tell me what, other than the title of ‘married’, is currently denied gays? Many suspect that the title is the stepping stone to some other right. I can’t see that. Help me out.

    Child adoption – answer to both your questions

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. Fletch (6,384 comments) says:

    It’s hard to understand why this is being pushed really when most gays don’t actually want it.

    It’s like it’s being forced onto gays for their own good by liberals in order to show how tolerant and good said liberals are so they may pat themselves on their collective back. It’s Political Correctness gone mad.

    Being open to pushing a law change based on every Liberal whim (no matter how perverse) doesn’t make one good or great.
    It is the standing up for what is right and moral based on what is True that is worthy.
    As I’ve said before – I like this quote from Captain America –

    “Doesn’t matter what the press says. Doesn’t matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn’t matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right.

    This nation was founded on one principle above all else: The requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world — “No, YOU move.”

    http://imgshack.info/images/19bqojqetbwly48sp7hj.jpg

    So, that’s what I’m saying to John Key, to Barrack Obama, to the progressive media, to the know-nothing indoctrinated youth who think that in the interests of “fairness” that any “loving” relationship is OK to be affirmed in law as long as it is “consensual” – NO, YOU move.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. Redbaiter (8,810 comments) says:

    John Key would never have raised this issue, and said he was going to vote for it, during the election campaign.

    He’s an incoherent fraud and a fake and a coward.

    .. and what the hell is he doing leading the National party?

    I’ll tell you. They’re a pack of spineless left wing jellyfish with very little to differentiate them from the Labour party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. Jimmy Smits (246 comments) says:

    Adding to the website’s early-launch woes, US band Train is also vowing to get one of their songs removed from the website, after a YouTube link to the song Marry Me was placed on the website without them knowing.

    Train was asked yesterday by a New Zealand tweeter, @Mikey_J_S, why their music video appeared on the website.

    Train responded: “Didn’t know. Getting it off asap. Tnx 4 tip”.

    Mr McCoskrie said he had not yet heard from Train, and the song remained on the website.

    “We’re not going to do anything based on Twitter, but if they contact us and ask us to remove, we will certainly respect their wishes.”

    What a dick, so obviously Bob McCoskrie finds it appropriate to use musicians’ intellectual property, without their permission and then doesn’t think: “Gee, maybe we should stop using their song if they have said on Twitter they want it removed.” That’s Christians for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. Fletch (6,384 comments) says:

    Jimmy, it’s easy to embed a youtube song on a site, or a link to said song.

    See, just did it. And lots of people do it on their blogs or facebook profile without the artists knowing or caring.
    It’s harmless most of the time – doesn’t mean the artist agrees with the site etc.
    It looks like mean stab by a sad, intolerant tweeter.

    It’s not those who disagree with gay-marriage that are “intolerant’ – it’s what’s called an having an OPINION.
    It’s those who do not like the other person’s OPINION and then slag them off, attack their website, or tweet to get a video removed that are INTOLERANT. The Liberals are the true intolerant bigots.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. Joseph Carpenter (214 comments) says:

    To answer Alloytoo: Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden – the European Court of Human Rights is very clear: no state is required to recognise same sex marriage in law – BUT if they do then there can be no lawful discrimination against same sex marriage on religious/conscience grounds and clerics/churches must undertake same sex marriage ceremonies, Denmark and Sweden have both specifically legislated for this and it looks like Belgium and the Netherlands will too shortly. In Canada marriage commissioners (= our celebrants) are also forced to marry same sex couples, any private organisation offering marriage type services to the public is also compelled (e.g. the local church hall for event hire or a printer) but clerics/churches can refuse – for the moment, the proposed Defense of Religious Conscience Bill by the Conservatives specifically protecting this right is in limbo/coalition too hard box.

    In the UK the current Tory government ministers have confirmed that if same sex marriage is made legal as per their policy then clerics and churches (not Muslim clerics and mosques obviously ;-) ) will be forced to conduct the ceremonies.

    In the US some same sex marriage states/local ordinances also compel clerics/churches not to refuse but this is highly likely unconstitutional vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment but you’d need deep pockets and time to overturn a local prosecution.

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

    BB,

    I have seen enough of your factually challenged rantings to know that your concept of “well documented facts” is likely to be little more than yet more hyperbolic ranting.

    I suspect, having seen you do it before, that you will cherry pick a few issues, ignore all contrary evidence (such as the creation of the Western university system or the massive amounts of welfare and charity) and then present those facts as “proof” of your one-sided, selective, and hyperbolic conclusions. They will of course be facts that can be found in virtually any flawed human institution. You will of course ignore this, such as the fact that a child is far more likely, statistically, to be abused in a secular school than in the RC.

    Or, to put it mote simply, your a bullshit artist who mistakes his own warped worldview for reality.

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

    By the way BB, “evil” is a theological category. Whenever a person claims not to be religious, then starts talking about “good and evil”, then that is proof that your just peddling your own personal religion. It is also good evidence for my view that your driven by deep seated psychological issues rather than reason and facts. The level of your hostility on this blog to Christians would make any Jungian or Freudian psychoanalyst stand up and take notice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    Milko#

    “….Having said that, I’m still of the opinion that the Marriage Act should simply be repealed, as the state has no business in regulating personal relationships…”

    NZ is a sovereign state -with a government- and Marriage is MOSTLY about the welfare of children – the NEXT generation.

    If Marriage DIDN’T involve kids -then yes Milko- the government WOULDN’T give a fuck about it.But it DOES involve children so they do!

    Gays just can’t or won’t accept that Marriage is mostly about the welfare of children – and it is a very sorry day indeed for NZ’s gay community when they behave that immaturely!

    I banged on all last year over at Stuff about ‘NZ’s gay community and the chance they have to show the world how mature they are’ – yet they don’t care.

    It’s really, really sad Milko to see that level of ignorance, as who is ever going to give a fuck what gays say from now on?

    I’m not! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull#

    “…What makes same sex marriage “right” ?…”

    “….Amending discriminatory legislation is right….”

    Stop talking crap!

    The CONDUCT of those who CHOOSE to get Married is already defined – a man can ONLY choose a women etc.

    That is what Marriage is Ryan – and has been the prevailing view for thousands of years.

    Today’s gays are simply trying to RE-DEFINE Marriage.

    And doing a poor job of it. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. boredboy (250 comments) says:

    Lol, that’s not an embed, that’s a hyperlink.

    Biggot dinosaur fail. lol.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    I banged on all last year over at Stuff about ‘NZ’s gay community and the chance they have to show the world how mature they are’ – yet they don’t care.

    :lol: LOL

    New Zealand’s homosexual community wasn’t interested in taking a lesson in maturity from Harriet? Well bugger me…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    Chuck – he has introduced things into the debate that have got nothing to do with what is in the proposed legislation. He’s deliberately exaggerating the possible outcome (a lot). That makes it easy for his opposition to not take him seriously.

    Pete, the opposition will not take Bob McCoskrie seriously whatever he says. Homosexual activists and libertarian ideologues are not interested in reasoned debate and they will use abuse and a lies to achieve their end. It should be obvious that neither Louisa Wall or Charles Chauvel believe what they say or they would not oppose a binding referendum, particularly when they support a referendum for partial asset s sales.

    Bob is trying to get the message out to the thinking public.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    New Zealand’s homosexual community wasn’t interested in taking a lesson in maturity from Harriet? Well bugger me…

    No thanks

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Bob is trying to get the message out to the thinking public.

    If he wants to do that he shouldn’t introduce possibilities that have no chance of being seriously considered. He’s putting himself in a position of being seen as extreme as the fringe on the other side.

    If he wants to be listened to by the thinking public he should stick to the main issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. Ryan Sproull (7,136 comments) says:

    Stop talking crap!

    The CONDUCT of those who CHOOSE to get Married is already defined – a man can ONLY choose a women etc.

    That is what Marriage is Ryan – and has been the prevailing view for thousands of years.

    Today’s gays are simply trying to RE-DEFINE Marriage.

    And doing a poor job of it.

    Marriage has been many things over the years. In many places, polygamous marriages have been the norm. In the West, it has come to be a loving (supposedly) lifelong commitment between two people. This law change does not change that definition.

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

    Pete:

    “If he wants to do that he shouldn’t introduce possibilities that have no chance of being seriously considered.”

    His job is to protect traditional morality, not change his tune to suit what may or may not be possible. At one point in history some used the same line you are to oppose the vote for women. What is possible changes over time.

    “If he wants to be listened to by the thinking public ”

    He already is listened to by the thinking public. It’s urban latte liberals who have closed their minds and hearts to anything other than their own failed ideology.

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

    “In the West, it has come to be a loving (supposedly) lifelong commitment between two people.”

    Amongst urban liberals that is true. It is not true of the West as a whole.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. Ryan Sproull (7,136 comments) says:

    Amongst urban liberals that is true. It is not true of the West as a whole.

    How would you describe the current general idea of marriage?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    It is interesting that so many who have previously been so critical of Government inteference in our lives and of the Klerk years in particular, and who would regard themselves being to the right of the political spectrum, are now so enthusiastically supportive of state discrimination against homosexuals. Some of them have even described themselves as libertarians and worshipped at the altar of Perigo (that irony is self-evident on this thread).

    OK, it isn’t “marriage” as far as I’m concerned. But the point at issue is equality before the law. When this little boil first appeared I figured, fine, don’t call it “marriage” though, because it isn’t, but ensure that there is equality before the law in all respects. Now I’m thinking: fuck it, please it marriage because it’s driving the hypocrites nuts.

    Now the people who support the notion that Government could stay the fuck out of our lives are considered lefties and marxists. Go figure …

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

    “How would you describe the current general idea of marriage?”

    I would say that it is not possible to talk about a single “general” idea of marriage when we are in the midst of a culture war in which different groups in the West have radically different views on the issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. Ryan Sproull (7,136 comments) says:

    I would say that it is not possible to talk about a single “general” idea of marriage when we are in the midst of a culture war in which different groups in the West have radically different views on the issue.

    Fair enough. Could you list some of the more common ones?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    … and the other interesting point that has been reinforced by this thread is the propensity of those of a religious persuasion to base their views around a starting proposition that has no evidential basis (G**) in the expectation that those of a contrary view (referring to the formers’ deity as the sky fairy or whatever) will somehow see that arguments constructed upon that eggshell will have any merit at all and not simply fail at that first hurdle.

    However, this is of course not new.

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

    “Fair enough. Could you list some of the more common ones?”

    Traditional Marriage: marriage rooted in a Biblical/Traditional worldview and tied to patriarchal authority, intergeneration and inter-family kinship ties, and the perpetuation of the ethnic/national group

    Family Values Marriage: preservation of the nuclear family, touted as “traditional” but is actually fairly recent.

    Liberal Marriage: Marriage solely as a social construct and malleable to the wishes of any consenting adults.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. alloytoo (542 comments) says:

    @Joseph Carpenter

    The marriage act of New Zealand authorises, but does not oblige, marraige celebrants to conduct any marriage.

    FUD AWAY!

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

    “and the other interesting point that has been reinforced by this thread is the propensity of those of a religious persuasion to base their views around a starting proposition that has no evidential basis”

    Define “evidential basis”.

    All arguments concerning life issues (marriage, family, children, abortion, euthanasia) are theological by nature, including so-called secular liberal arguments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. Ryan Sproull (7,136 comments) says:

    Traditional Marriage: marriage rooted in a Biblical/Traditional worldview and tied to patriarchal authority, intergeneration and inter-family kinship ties, and the perpetuation of the ethnic/national group

    Family Values Marriage: preservation of the nuclear family, touted as “traditional” but is actually fairly recent.

    Liberal Marriage: Marriage solely as a social construct and malleable to the wishes of any consenting adults.

    Well, they’re all social constructs, obviously. They’re just lots of different social constructs all referred to by the same term. And outside of the West, the same term is used to refer to other social constructs – polygamous marriages, temporary marriages (as in Shi’a Islam, I believe), arranged marriages.

    Is it possible that the social constructs all referred to by the word “marriage” are too varied for there to be any elements common to them all? Or is there some common element that ties them all together?

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

    “Well, they’re all social constructs, obviously. ”

    The concept of social constructs is a modern idea rooted in modern social theory. If your a Christian Traditionalist who rejects modern ideological theories and epistimological assumptions (as I am and do) then it is not “obvious” at all. If you get my meaning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. Ryan Sproull (7,136 comments) says:

    The concept of social constructs is a modern idea rooted in modern social theory. If your a Christian Traditionalist who rejects modern ideological theories and epistimological assumptions (as I am and do) then it is not “obvious” at all. If you get my meaning.

    Sure, though the concept of electricity is a modern idea rooted in modern physics. Doesn’t mean that lightning hasn’t always been electricity.

    But we can’t have one religion’s epistemological assumptions defining legal matters in a democracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird:

    Bend over and get ready for your compulsory gay marriage! :-)

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

    “Sure, though the concept of electricity is a modern idea rooted in modern physics.”

    Not necessarily, but thats a debate for another time.

    “But we can’t have one religion’s epistemological assumptions defining legal matters in a democracy.”

    I thought you were an anarchist?

    And we DO have one religion’s epistemological assmptions defining legal matters, as secular modernist liberalism is a religion. All total worldviews are religions, no matter how much they scream otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. Ryan Sproull (7,136 comments) says:

    I thought you were an anarchist?

    Sure, I’ve said several times that I’d prefer the state had nothing to do with marriage at all. But if we’re going to be a liberal democracy, we should at least be consistent about it.

    And we DO have one religion’s epistemological assmptions defining legal matters, as secular modernist liberalism is a religion. All total worldviews are religions, no matter how much they scream otherwise.

    Right, New Zealand is a secular democracy. Call it a religion if you like, but we do have separation of church/mosque and state here. Or we’re supposed to.

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

    “But if we’re going to be a liberal democracy, we should at least be consistent about it.”

    Consistency is impossible as “liberal democracy” is a self-refuting and contradictory ideology.

    And I have no desire to live in a liberal democracy.

    “Call it a religion if you like, but we do have separation of church/mosque and state here. Or we’re supposed to.”

    We have one dominant religion (secular humanism) that excludes any other rivals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. Ryan Sproull (7,136 comments) says:

    We have one dominant religion (secular humanism) that excludes any other rivals.

    We have an environment in which all traditional religions have protections and no traditional religion’s views should be forced on everyone.

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

    “We have an environment in which all traditional religions have protections and no traditional religion’s views should be forced on everyone.”

    For these and other liberals myths…….

    We have an environment in which traditional religion is increasingly proscribed and infinged upon and a non-traditional religion is forced on all and sundry through that religion’s control of political and social institutions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. Ryan Sproull (7,136 comments) says:

    We have an environment in which traditional religion is increasingly proscribed and infinged upon and a non-traditional religion is forced on all and sundry through that religion’s control of political and social institutions.

    What does separation of church and state mean to you?

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

    “What does separation of church and state mean to you?”

    Nothing. It’s a meaningless and dishonest phrase.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. Ryan Sproull (7,136 comments) says:

    Nothing. It’s a meaningless and dishonest phrase.

    Do you think that Christian values should be imposed on all New Zealanders regardless of their particular religions?

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

    “Do you think that Christian values should be imposed on all New Zealanders regardless of their particular religions?”

    By its very nature the modern state is ALWAYS going to impose its religious values (regardless of what you call that religion: liberalism, cultural marxism, humanism) on all New Zealanders regardless of their particular religions.

    The flaw in your argument is your belief in the myth of secular neutrality. The state is not secular, and never nuetral.

    However, in answer to your question, what I want is to get rid of the modern state entirely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. Aredhel777 (290 comments) says:

    You know, it’s funny how liberals think that the state can’t legislate in your bedroom, but increasingly it can legislate in your church. You get comments like ‘how dare Christians impose their beliefs on everyone else’ and now in Britain and elsewhere in Europe and the US it’s the other way round- liberals are imposing their views on homosexuality on dissenting Christians. In Denmark it is now compulsory for priests to perform gay marriages.

    “The government shouldn’t be dictating who can and cannot get married, yet the government should punish people for not endorsing what it defines as marriage!”

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

    Aredhel777

    Exactly. Liberal Democracy is a sham.

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

    I have to go now, as I am working on an assigment that is due this week.

    Ironically the paper the assigment is for is ‘God, Ethics and the Modern World’ :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. Yvette (2,814 comments) says:

    The principal Marriage Act 1955 does not define marriage being between a man and a woman, but couples other than between a man and a woman have not been permitted to obtain marriage licences

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

    Marriage was a man made institution created to serve man…..in many forms as history shows. God had nothing to do with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  263. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    Aredhel777

    You know, it’s funny how liberals think that the state can’t legislate in your bedroom, but increasingly it can legislate in your church.

    You mean in the same way that you want to impose your views on your fellow citizens?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  264. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    Lee01

    Good luck with the “Ethics” component. Allow a bit of extra time for that bit.

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

    I think it might be the modern world that Lee has a problem with!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  266. SGA (1,025 comments) says:

    @Aredhel777 11:00 am “In Denmark it is now compulsory for priests to perform gay marriages.”

    I did a quick check on this statement. From what I can tell, it’s a tad misleading. Only the state church, the Church of Denmark, must perform same-sex marriages, and individual priests can opt out if they so chose (about two-third of the priests support same-sex marriage, so it’s not a big issue).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  267. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    The Truth Gap

    Increasingly today we are finding an entire generation which has been raised on the destructive pap of relativism.

    Millions of young people in the West today have absolutely no conception of such a thing as truth, and are firmly convinced that everything is relative. We have a whole generation who cannot bring itself to say that the Holocaust was wrong, or that destroying marriage is wrong, or that killing unborn babies is wrong, yet will quite readily assure us that what is wrong is to say these things are wrong!

    An entire generation seems to have lost the ability to think, to engage in moral clarity, and to utilise basic logic and rationality. And they celebrate this. They think it is a sign of progress that they have moved beyond mere logic, moral acuity, and mental soundness.

    It really comes down to a clash of worldviews. The Judeo-Christian worldview is at complete odds with the secular humanist worldview which now reigns in the West. A generation has been steeped in the latter, and knows nothing about any other competing view of reality.

    And as Francis Schaeffer wrote:
    “We must never forget that the humanist position is an exclusivist, closed system which shuts out all contending viewpoints – especially if these views teach anything other than relative values and standards. Anything which presents absolute truth, values, or standards is quite rightly seen by the humanists to be a total denial of the humanistic position.”

    For all of its lip service to diversity, acceptance, tolerance and openness, it is implacably opposed to any competing claims. It simply will not tolerate those who believe in absolute truth and universal morality. It will seek to shut down real debate and censor any contrary voices.

    But those raised on this worldview cannot even see the utter double standards. I chat with young people all the time and it is quite amazing to see them get angry with me when I insist that there really is such a thing as truth.

    As they seek to argue for their “tolerant” worldview, they quickly become exceedingly intolerant of me, yet see absolutely no incongruity in any of this. They will shout at me decrying my judgmentalism – little realising just how very judgmental they in fact are.

    Indeed, as J. Budziszewski has written,
    “If you really believe that the meaning of tolerance is tolerating, then you ought to tolerate even intolerance. If you really believe that the best foundation for toleration is to avoid having strong convictions about good and evil, then you should not try to harbor the strong conviction that intolerance is bad.”

    But all this would be totally lost on these folks. They have little or no ability to think logically or think critically, so they are quite happy to stumble through life in their mental fog, thinking they are somehow superior people because they refuse to judge anyone – except for those who happen to differ from them of course.

    Now in the old days when reasoning and careful thinking were still in vogue, you could shame these people into silence by pointing out their obvious double standards, hypocrisy, and utter illogic. But today that does not work on most people.

    Rational thought is sneezed at, logic is disdained, moral perception is dismissed, and intellectual coherence is yawned at. So it becomes almost impossible to argue with these people, to hold a proper debate, to engage in an intelligent conversation with them.

    The relativist can’t be 100% certain about relativism.That’s relative. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  268. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    SGA#

    If the Priest opts out then the Bishop HAS to appoint someone who will.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  269. SGA (1,025 comments) says:

    @Harriet – As I said, about 2/3rds of the priests _support_ same-sex marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  270. Ryan Sproull (7,136 comments) says:

    The relativist can’t be 100% certain about relativism.That’s relative.

    It’s reassuring that people who criticise relativism say things like this, demonstrating that they don’t understand it in the first place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  271. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull#

    Relativity is nothing more than ‘anything goes’.

    What else could it be? :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  272. cha (4,010 comments) says:

    Do you ever write anything yourself Harriet?.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  273. alloytoo (542 comments) says:

    @Lee01

    “We have an environment in which traditional religion is increasingly proscribed and infinged upon and a non-traditional religion is forced on all and sundry through that religion’s control of political and social institutions.”

    So basically you’re whinging because the shoe’s on the other foot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  274. Ryan Sproull (7,136 comments) says:

    Relativity is nothing more than ‘anything goes’.

    What else could it be?

    Something else entirely.

    Relativity is not “anything goes”. It’s “what goes is relative”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  275. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull#

    “…It’s reassuring that people who criticise relativism say things like this, demonstrating that they don’t understand it in the first place….”

    Like I said Ryan –

    “….As they seek to argue for their “tolerant” worldview, they quickly become exceedingly intolerant of me, yet see absolutely no incongruity in any of this. They will shout at me decrying my judgmentalism – little realising just how very judgmental they in fact are…”

    It’s called hypocracy Ryan.

    Why do you place a value on hypocracy Ryan? :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  276. Ryan Sproull (7,136 comments) says:

    It’s called hypocracy Ryan.

    Why do you place a value on hypocracy Ryan?

    Relativism does not imply that everything should be tolerated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  277. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    It’s called hypocracy Ryan.

    No, it’s called Hypocrisy. Noob. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  278. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    We have a whole generation who cannot bring itself to say that the Holocaust was wrong,

    LOL what? Some of your posts are pretty fucked up Harriet.

    Who/where are the whole generation that can’t bring itself to say that the Holocaust was wrong??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  279. cha (4,010 comments) says:

    LOL what? Some of your posts are pretty fucked up Harriet

    Harriet lifts whole posts from Bill Muehlenberg.

    http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2012/07/27/the-truth-gap/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  280. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull#

    “….Relativity is not “anything goes”. It’s “what goes is relative”….’

    You really fucked that up Ryan –

    ‘What goes’ must be based on something that underpins it as most people don’t really act spontanously, so relativity is then not much more than a construct that acknowledges why people do things. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  281. Ryan Sproull (7,136 comments) says:

    ‘What goes’ must be based on something that underpins it as most people don’t really act spontanously, so relativity is then not much more than a construct that acknowledges why people do things.

    That’s a much better way of putting it. “A construct that acknowledges why people do things.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  282. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    RRM#

    Lots question it, namely the amount of jews who were killed, before they denounce it. The holocaust is an absolute truth, so why should it be questioned?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  283. Ryan Sproull (7,136 comments) says:

    Harriet,

    That’s your “a whole generation that can’t bring itself to say the Holocaust was wrong”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  284. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    No Harriet.

    That’s not what you said.

    Where is this whole generation who cannot bring itself to say that the Holocaust was wrong?

    In your own words please.

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

    MM

    “I think it might be the modern world that Lee has a problem with!”

    Modernism is an ideology. And yes, I reject modernism totally.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  286. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    Ryan#
    RRM#

    I never said it. But go ask the current generation about it and it wouldn’t be far of the mark.

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

    “So basically you’re whinging because the shoe’s on the other foot.”

    Two wrongs don’t make a right.

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

    A more accurate definition would be “A construct that creates an abstract theory as to why people do things in order to establish a morally neutral space in which a new morality (cultural marxism) can then be imposed.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  289. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    Allow me to refresh your memory:

    Harriet (401) Says:
    July 31st, 2012 at 11:56 am

    The Truth Gap

    Increasingly today we are finding an entire generation which has been raised on the destructive pap of relativism.

    Millions of young people in the West today have absolutely no conception of such a thing as truth, and are firmly convinced that everything is relative. We have a whole generation who cannot bring itself to say that the Holocaust was wrong, or that destroying marriage is wrong, or that killing unborn babies is wrong, yet will quite readily assure us that what is wrong is to say these things are wrong!

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

    Some of the hyperbole aside Harriet’s basic point is right.

    Just spend five minutes talking to your average university educated liberal ( and unfortunately I have to regularly)

    Liberal: “There is no absolute right or wrong, everything is relative, and it is wrong for anyone to impose their subjective views on others.”

    Contrarian: “Europeans have a better work ethic than Maori.”

    Liberal: “RAAAAACIST!!!! Thats WRONG and EVIL! I’m telling the Race Relations Commissioner on you! You WILL be re-educated!!!”

    Liberal Democracy………..Yeah Right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  291. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    Ryan#

    “….That’s a much better way of putting it. “A construct that acknowledges why people do things.”…”

    If that’s what it is, then it seems rather weak to me. More an afterthought.

    It’s ‘why’ people do things in the first place that matters, morality, thoughtfulness etc.

    I read recently[no not Bill Mullenburg :)] that if you ask kids today if they believe in morals, then a large proportion will offer up ‘it’s a personal choice’ – that in itself is rather immoral.

    I find it rather amusing when people want to place more constraints on religions and churches etc in society but then not even bother to question the social studies classes etc that is in all the schools and of which is ‘mandated’ by a rather faceless public service.

    The individual is now about as removed from the state as what the churches are.Which is probably why numbers are increasing at the churches and decreasing at the polling booth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  292. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    RRM#

    Cha will fill you in :cool: – and also on what you missed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  293. Ryan Sproull (7,136 comments) says:

    If that’s what it is, then it seems rather weak to me. More an afterthought.

    It’s ‘why’ people do things in the first place that matters, morality, thoughtfulness etc.

    Yes, and they differ from person to person and place to place.

    I read recently[no not Bill Mullenburg ] that if you ask kids today if they believe in morals, then a large proportion will offer up ‘it’s a personal choice’ – that in itself is rather immoral.

    They’d be wrong. For the most part, you can’t choose your relative morality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  294. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    Lee01

    Got a mental block there sunshine – looking for a diversion?? What is it; the ethics bit, or the modern world?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  295. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    Ryan#

    “….They’d be wrong. For the most part, you can’t choose your relative morality….”

    So why then am I about the only one speaking out against ‘tolerance’?

    Clearly ‘tolerance’ is a misguided virtue?

    Wouldn’t being ‘judgemental’ be a better virtue to be taught to children?

    Afterall, isn’t parenting all about ‘raising adults – not children’? – Especially since it is the next generation that is being raised?

    There’s nothing wrong with values and standards being imposed I believe.

    and why would they need to differ ‘much’ from person to person & place to place if you live under the same common law etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  296. Ryan Sproull (7,136 comments) says:

    So why then am I about the only one speaking out against ‘tolerance’?

    Clearly ‘tolerance’ is a misguided virtue?

    I think it’s precisely because people can’t choose their relative morality that we should keep that in mind when dealing with people whose values differ from our own. If intolerance rests on a belief that people with different values are being wilfully stupid or evil, the realisation that morality is relative and not chosen undermines intolerance. When you realise that people are the way they are and sincerely believe the things they do because of a whole bunch of things outside of their control (language, culture, parents, religion, schooling, genetics, personal life experiences, etc.), you can’t help but be more tolerant.

    And as you’ve noted, there are plenty of progressives who demonstrate that they don’t really understand this about values and morality. Some treat Christians as if they’re being wilfully ignorant or being groundlessly hateful, for example, when the fact is that if they had lived the lives those Christians had lived, they would hold precisely the same values and hold them just as strongly as they believe whatever progressive values they happen to consider “best”.

    It’s not possible to say that one morality is simply right or best, because to evaluate a morality as right/wrong or good/bad is only possible from within a moral framework. There’s no neutral position from which to make such a judgement. And, of course, every moral framework is perfect by its own criteria. Secular values are not best: they are the secular-est. Christian values are not best: they are the Christian-est. And so on. But to the secularist, secularism is best, because she’s evaluating it in terms of her secular framework. And to the Christian, Christianity is best, because she’s evaluating it in terms of her Christian framework.

    The trick is to find elements that are common between moral frameworks and start a dialogue from there. It’s not likely to change anyone’s values, but a genuine dialogue generating a clearer understanding of where someone else is coming from (along with a realisation that values are relative and vary from person to person) will undermine a lot of the foundation of intolerance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  297. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    I just heard on the news that Winston said NZF will be strongly arguing for a binding referendum on this issue. It will be interesting to see how MPs vote if an amendment is moved to that effect.

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

    “I think it’s precisely because people can’t choose their relative morality”

    What do you base that on?

    I have seen people radically change their views on morality, and change their lives as well. I have done so myself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  299. Ryan Sproull (7,136 comments) says:

    What do you base that on?

    I have seen people radically change their views on morality, and change their lives as well. I have done so myself.

    Logical necessity.

    People’s moralities may be changed, yes. Ultimately, such a change is caused by things outside of the person’s control.

    If an event or meeting or exposure to some new idea changes their morality, that is outside of their control.

    If they could somehow choose to adopt different values, they would have reasons for doing so. Those reasons would be supplied by things ultimately outside of their control – meeting a new person, having a religious experience, reading a new book, etc.

    People don’t choose things for no reason. People choose things for reasons. And people don’t choose their reasons. (If they did, they’d have reasons for picking one reason over another – ad infinitum or outside of their control.)

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