Same sex marriage bill drawn

July 26th, 2012 at 1:50 pm by David Farrar

Five bills were drawn from the ballot today – four from Labour and one from Greens. The most high profile will be the bill from to allow . This will be a conscience vote, so expect to see media to start to ask around MPs how they will vote for it on first reading. That is probably six or so weeks away.

Tags: , ,

264 Responses to “Same sex marriage bill drawn”

  1. kowtow (8,439 comments) says:

    Asking MPs how they’ll vote……..bugger that ,why not a referendum,this is supposed to be a democracy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. iMP (2,384 comments) says:

    My biggest problem with this bill, is the notion that same-gender parenting is the same as diverse-gender parenting, when it simply is not. We know kids needs Mums and Dads, and suffer when one or other is absent. But this bill seeks to entrench that by design in kids lives.

    Solo-parenting is often quoted alongside. We all recognize solo-parenting (for whatever reason) as a reality but we don’t legislate it in as a norm, which is why we support solo parents with targeted welfare others don’t get, because we know the well established DOWNSIDES of solo parenting on kids (regardless of how awesome their solo parent is).

    A same-sex marriage bill, and concomitant adoption rights, will entrench a lopsided social framework on kids to their detriment.

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

    “Asking MPs how they’ll vote……..bugger that ,why not a referendum,this is supposed to be a democracy?”

    Exactly, I hope or someone can persuade an MP to move an amendment that the bill would go through the all the normal processes and the voters have a chance to say yes or no on the bill in its final amended format. If anyone else knows an MP who might do so I hope you will lobby him or her.

    [DPF: Polls have indicated NZers suppport same sex marriage by a 2:1 ratio, and around 8:1 for those under 30, so a referendum would I think be strongly for same sex marriage]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. simonway (387 comments) says:

    this is supposed to be a democracy?

    That’s what elections are for. If you don’t like it, you should have voted for Colin Craig.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Cunningham (844 comments) says:

    iMP if 2 people of the same sex want to get married and raise a child in a loving environment then who are we to tell them they can’t do it? I bet alot of same sex couples would be alot better parents then alot of opposite sex couples raising children today. I have no problem at all with this bill being passed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. MikeMan (172 comments) says:

    You know what I am sick and tired of the “Two parents must be mum and dad” argument. Chris and Cru Kahui had a mother and a father and how well did THAT work out?

    Two same sex parents who love their child is considerably safer than an abusive mixed sex relationship or a solo parent situation.

    I have a few gay friends and most of them would make excellent parents, while some of the gender diverse couples that I know would be terrible parents. It is down to the people involved NOT what their sexual orientation is that matters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Ryan Sproull (7,115 comments) says:

    More like the MARRIAGE ATROCITY BILL!!!! AM I RIGHT GUYS???

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

    “That’s what elections are for. If you don’t like it, you should have voted for Colin Craig.”

    So Simon you call it democracy that MPs can vote for legislation like the anti-smacking bill that was opposed by 86% of the voters and probably a higher percentage of parents would oppose this attack on parental authority.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. iMP (2,384 comments) says:

    The comments about gay couples loving each other and being amazing parents is irrelevant. The point is, that it will structurally and legislatively DENY children a childhood shaped by diverse gender in their parents. gays can be awesome parents, they can also be psychos, just like heterosexual parents. That’s not the point.

    It’s like forcing kids to only wear two right shoes or two left shoes. For best walking, have one of each…

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

    Fantastic news.

    The polls on NZ Herald and Stuff are running 60/40 and 75/25 respectively in favour of marriage equality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. MikeMan (172 comments) says:

    iMP

    So to use your shoe analogy you would rather try and walk 10 miles in a badly fitted pair of shoes that are half a size to small and hurt your feet as opposed to a pair nice comfortable ambidextrous sandals?

    Good one

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    Not all issues can, or should, be voted by the general population, this is especially true of rights issues.

    Basically it is unreasonable to expect a minority to have rights decided by a majority. That was the case in the Civil Union bill, and should be the case here too.

    There is an argument that issues perhaps of economic and social policy could be put to a referendum, but for issues of law and rights that argument is harder to make I think.

    Personally I’m not really in favour of referendum for any legislating – the turnout is woefully low, the people who are voting are seldom well informed.

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

    If 3 people of the same sex want to get married and raise a child in a loving environment then who are we to tell them they can’t do it?

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

    iMP

    I think your whole assertion is bullshit. I’ve known quite a number of kids brought up in gay households. None have been noticeably more maladjusted than any other people I’ve know. But beyond that this law won’t exclude hetrosexual adoption – the vast majority of adopted children will still end up in “gender diverse” homes.

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

    “Personally I’m not really in favour of referendum for any legislating – the turnout is woefully low, the people who are voting are seldom well informed.”

    True, but not always. Last time only about 6% of the country (12% of voters) took the side of the uninformed.

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

    iMP,

    We know kids needs Mums and Dads, and suffer when one or other is absent. But this bill seeks to entrench that by design in kids lives.

    There is no such thing as the perfect parents. Your argument is fallacious because we can easily find children from solo parent or even, heaven forbid, gay parent households who perform better than children from traditional families. So your argument therefore must necessarily be based on statistics, i.e. that *on average* they do better in two parent, traditional households.

    But by the same logic I could argue that children do better in Pakeha households *on average*. Should we therefore discriminate against and prejudice Maori who wish to marry and/or raise children?

    It is absolute fucking bullshit to say that a person’s basic civil rights, i.e. their right to be treated equally and without prejudice by their government, depends upon the statistics pertaining to the class of people to which they belong.

    A child’s welfare should be judged according to specific facts and circumstances pertaining to that child and their parents/caregivers, it should not be decided on prejudice and ignorance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Griff (7,683 comments) says:

    The god squad still trying to make believe they are not repressed homosexuals
    Get together guys and girls and explore you deviant sexuality.
    No need to hide it god already knows

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    scrubone

    Good question perhaps, but has no bearing on this. At is essence marriage is a legal union between two individuals. Maybe there’s an argument to be made that the number of parties should be extended, but it has nothing to do with removing gender limitations on existing marriage law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. iMP (2,384 comments) says:

    …also my dog, he’s incredibly loving, is part of our family, and adores children. Can he be included?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    True, but not always. Last time only about 6% of the country (12% of voters) took the side of the uninformed.

    Which last time are we referring to here?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    …also my dog, he’s incredibly loving, is part of our family, and adores children. Can he be included?

    Maybe, can your dog enter into contracts? Let’s start simple – get him a hire purchase or a credit card first to test that part of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. iMP (2,384 comments) says:

    Dogs can inherit and own businesses.

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

    iMP (603) Says:
    July 26th, 2012 at 2:34 pm

    …also my dog, he’s incredibly loving, is part of our family, and adores children. Can he be included?

    Are you comparing gays to dogs?

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

    “It is absolute fucking bullshit to say that a person’s basic civil rights”

    It is absolute fucking bullshit to say that a person has basic civil rights based on their sexual preference.

    What if someone is bisexual why should three people not be allowed to adopt?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Andrei (2,640 comments) says:

    The lunatics have taken over the asylum – two men cannot marry each other, too be sure the government can give them a piece of paper but it will be as worthless as used toilet paper because sodomy is just perversity and cannot create new life.

    And marriage is about creating new life and nurturing it.

    This is satanic

    [DPF: Andrei, Andrei, Andrei. How many times are you going to conflate sodomy and homosexuality. Many heterosexual couples practice sodomy. Sodomy does not have to involve two men. It is the insertion of a penis into an anus, whether the anus be male or female.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. lastmanstanding (1,293 comments) says:

    I guess for pale male and stales like me this is a bridge too far. IMHO marriage is as it always has been between a bloke and a sheila

    If 2 of the blokes or 2 of the sheilas want to get together then I guess thats OK but not to high jack the marriage word. Thats the bit that goes too far for me.

    Call it something else thats OK but not marriage. It aint It never was and it shouldnt be stolen from us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. iMP (2,384 comments) says:

    I have never understood how homosexuality or lesbianism was a basis for human rights, anymore than line dancing is a basis for human rights. You get human rights cos you’re human. gay people can marry, just not ON THE BASIS of being gay.

    Mind you, perhaps we should BAN line dancers getting married…they might breed (legitimately).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. kowtow (8,439 comments) says:

    Yep when it comes to pressure group politics and special interests ,democacy quite rightly goes out the window.

    We can’t afford to let electorates make important decisions that we won’t win can we?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    Andrei:
    I should ignore this, of course, but should infertile people be allowed to marry? Should marriages be annulled if they don’t produce a child within a set time – maybe 2-years?

    iMP:
    Dogs can’t inherit or own businesses.

    Chuck Bird:
    The civil right in question, the ability to be have their relationship recognised legally for all that that entails, isn’t being allowed based on their sexual orientation, but instead not being denied on that basis.

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

    I agree there’s no reason to limit a family to just two adults. There is nothing inherently special about the nuclear family. Indeed it’s somewhat of a modern aberration in some respects as it was not practical for many people prior to industrialization.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Grendel (1,002 comments) says:

    Clearly traditional marriage as Andrei knows it from the god book is being challenged.

    i hope to maintain tradition Andrei that you arranged the marriages for your daughters yourself, and negotiated the right amount of livestock for their dowry.

    of course if any of them are raped i hope you made the rapist marry them as well?

    or is traditional marriage only convenient when it fits your rhetoric.

    from my pov this is a good start but the next bill should be to remove govt from any aspect of marriage, why should any rational couple who thinks “we love each other, and want to spend the rest of our lives together and share that with our friends” then think “quick lets get the govts permission, without their approval our love is just not proper”. tosh. get govt out of marriage completely.

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

    Andrei,

    This is satanic

    And you speak of lunatics? Seems you are the one engaging in make believe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    lastmanstanding:
    It already is allowed as Civil Union, but why is a word so important? The “same but different” thing is then offensive to those that are being differentiated in that way.

    In the end it is just a word. The ability of my gay friends to call their union a “marriage” makes no difference to the value of my marriage.

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

    iMP (605) Says:
    July 26th, 2012 at 2:45 pm

    I have never understood how homosexuality or lesbianism was a basis for human rights, anymore than line dancing is a basis for human rights. You get human rights cos you’re human. gay people can marry, just not ON THE BASIS of being gay.

    I have never understood how religion or other such fairy tales was a basis for human rights, anymore than line dancing is a basis for human rights. You get human rights cos you’re human. religious people can marry, just no on the basis of being religious. They must marry a non-religious person who may one day cure them of their delusions. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. iMP (2,384 comments) says:

    Ok, well if its just a word, then lets change the definition of “homosexual” to one man with one woman?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Ryan Sproull (7,115 comments) says:

    Of course this is Satanic. There’s an invisible magical being out there whose sole purpose is to very sneakily trick people into disagreeing with what Andrei thinks is true. Marriage Equality is just another one of those tricks.

    I like the recent trend of “the Government can say they’re married but they’re not really”. I can imagine someone rocking back and forth repeating it over and over. It implies a mindset that sees marriage equality as inevitable, so now’s the time to start mentally preparing ourselves for living in a world where one religion’s values aren’t imposed on everyone via the State.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. nasska (11,478 comments) says:

    I wonder how far this will go in NZ. Ref: http://imgur.com/gallery/VSW8L

    Note…..I’ve “Googled” the info & the letter seems to be genuine.

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

    Chuck Bird (2,368) Says:
    July 26th, 2012 at 2:41 pm

    It is absolute fucking bullshit to say that a person has basic civil rights based on their sexual preference.

    Why is it any more bullshit than having civil rights because you believe in fairy tales?

    What if someone is bisexual why should three people not be allowed to adopt?

    Indeed, why not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. iMP (2,384 comments) says:

    Weihana, people don’t get married on the basis of their religion, they get married because of their gender (ie Male or Female). This transcends religion, culture, and time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    iMP:

    Great, we’re going to get awesomely confusing soon.

    The rights involved already exist in the form of Civil Union, I really don’t understand why people are then so touchy about the specific word involved.

    How about we abolish marriage entirely and we all just have Civil Union? Would you be satisfied to be able to have a Civil Union only, instead of Marriage?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Ryan Sproull (7,115 comments) says:

    How about we abolish marriage entirely and we all just have Civil Union? Would you be satisfied to be able to have a Civil Union only, instead of Marriage?

    I think it’s important to remember that abolishing all marriage is a step AWAY from people marrying their dogs. It’s perhaps the only way to be sure pet marriage will never happen.

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

    iMP (607) Says:
    July 26th, 2012 at 2:55 pm

    Weihana, people don’t get married on the basis of their religion, they get married because of their gender (ie Male or Female). This transcends religion, culture, and time.

    LOL, talk about setting the bar low..

    “Hey babe, you’ve got a vagina so…. wanna get married?”

    :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    this is gonna be a long 5-6 weeks.

    whats with the bullshit term “marriage equality”? its gay marriage.

    i hope it goes through. one less thing for the elite gays to bitch & moan about. gays should have exactly the same rights i have. BUT they should never have extra rights. i suspect thats where we will end up..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. iMP (2,384 comments) says:

    Nasska, if that letter is real, that is way scary, like, Nazi scary. His business is to be banned from Boston because of his views? That ain’t America.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    dime: Really, extra rights? I can hardly imagine that. Maybe you could consider anti-discrimination or “hate crimes” legislation to be that, but not quite the same.

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

    Andrei (1,315) Says:
    July 26th, 2012 at 2:41 pm

    The lunatics have taken over the asylum – two men cannot marry each other, too be sure the government can give them a piece of paper but it will be as worthless as used toilet paper because sodomy is just perversity and cannot create new life.

    And marriage is about creating new life and nurturing it.

    This is satanic

    Christians:

    * Wrong on slavery
    * Wrong on Jim Crow
    * Wrong on interracial marriage
    * Wrong on women’s rights

    But trust us – we are right on gay marriage!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Ryan Sproull (7,115 comments) says:

    dime: Really, extra rights? I can hardly imagine that. Maybe you could consider anti-discrimination or “hate crimes” legislation to be that, but not quite the same.

    Given enough time, the gays will eventually make it so that they can get even more married than straight people can.

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

    iMP,

    As quoted from the letter:

    “…I urge you to back out of your plans to locate in Boston…”

    How do you interpret the word “urge” to mean “require”? Moreover, on what authority does a mayor have to prohibit a business based on the personal opinions of its owner? None and no such powers were assumed from what I can see.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Scott Chris (6,135 comments) says:

    What if someone is bisexual why should three people not be allowed to adopt?

    Sure why not. Nothing morally wrong with that idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. iMP (2,384 comments) says:

    Jimmy Smits, check your facts, Christians are the ones who opposed slavery (google English MP William Wilberforce);
    Christians are the ones who fought for civil rights in America (google Baptist preacher Martin Luther King Jr). Stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Tauhei Notts (1,711 comments) says:

    Lastmanstanding at 2.43 p.m.
    Absolutely spot on.
    Marriage is a sacred contract between man and woman.
    If that is too hard for anybody to comprehend then that nincompoop can be ignored.
    Civil union legislation covers the situation where same sex people wish to enter into a contract that is similar to marriage.
    If the only political party that recognised that marriage is between man and woman; and that party wanted to take 40% of all taxable income and throw it at indigenous people, or something similarly idiotic, I would vote for them.
    This matter about marriage is the final straw.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. iMP (2,384 comments) says:

    Weihana, think you’re being disingenuous about the letter. It’s a letter to PRESSURE “Chik Fil A” NOT to come to Boston, and was cc’ed to the business they look to be renting from. If that ain’t trying to influence an outcome based on someone’s values, don’t know what is. Had to laugh at the oxymoron in the final sentence though,

    “…expanding freedom…” except if its “Chik Fil A”, who disagrees with us. Wonder if the Mayor sees the rank hypocrisy of his last line.

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

    I see in the news there’s a lovely God-approved hetero couple, one of whom bashed their twin young boys to death while the mother was out boozing back in 2009.

    I see no valid reason why there should be legislative obstacles to good gay couples having access marriage & adoption, while people like the above are free to walk the street and breed with impunity.

    Statements of the form “But marriage is between a man & a woman, IT JUST IS OKAY? do not sway me, and they would not in a referendum either. Sorry! But they don’t…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Ryan Sproull (7,115 comments) says:

    Jimmy Smits, check your facts, Christians are the ones who opposed slavery (google English MP William Wilberforce);
    Christians are the ones who fought for civil rights in America (google Baptist preacher Martin Luther King Jr). Stupid.

    Indeed, and there are Christians campaigning for equal treatment for gay citizens, too.

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

    Oh and I’m picking this thread will go to 350 comments.

    It’s all been said before, but the bill being drawn will add a lot of urgency and fervor… ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    Indeed Tauhei. And don’t think for a second that this is the end of the matter. The social experimenters are 10 steps ahead:

    Former Labour party Minister for Social Development and Employment Ruth Dyson in a speech to Victoria University first year Social and Public Policy students in 2008 said:

    “We must cater for the diversity we know exists. By this I mean the range of relationships from single, couples, triples, blended, de facto, and so on. That’s where we’re going with social policy.”

    Notice that? “triples”. Make no mistake. Civil unions and homosexual marriage are a bridgehead to the eventual legalization of polygamy, bestiality and sex with children (the initial foray into that one was Labour flagging the idea of lowering the age of consent to 12)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. iMP (2,384 comments) says:

    RRM, are you honestly trying to persuade us of the merits of same-sex marriage because a hetero couple you cite is bad, so its all good for samo.s. I mean, we can all cite terrible cases on both sides, you just can’t generalise like that. There are heaps of bad gay people who would make terrible parents, just as there are bad egg hetereos. THIS IS THE POINT…your sexuality is not a basis for marriage, rather your humanity, namely being a woman or a man.

    marriage is a human ritual that mimics genetics, a Y choromosome joins with a X chromosome to create a XX or an XY, not an XXX.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    Jimmy Smits, check your facts, Christians are the ones who opposed slavery (google English MP William Wilberforce);
    Christians are the ones who fought for civil rights in America (google Baptist preacher Martin Luther King Jr). Stupid.

    Sure, Christians opposed slavery eventually. And sure they fought for civil rights eventually

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

    Wow, its REALLY going to be an interesting 6 weeks :) Think I’ll need an extra large popcorn.

    So, TN, this statement of yours…Marriage is a sacred contract between man and woman…

    Given marriage has its roots in early pagan rituals…and was incorporated into the church to up membership, how does that make it ‘sacred’?

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

    iMP,

    I would have thought the property owner within his/her rights to refuse a lease to the business based upon the views of the owner. Why should they have to associate themselves with those views?

    The right to an opinion does not imply the right to have others facilitate that opinion or associate with such opinions.

    If someone wants to open a KKK memorabilia store does a landlord have to accept an application to lease?

    Freedom of expression is a two way street and I’m not sure I see the harm in the mayor and/or the property owner expressing their own views by refusing to deal with this business in a personal capacity.

    If the mayor threatened official action or treated the business different in an official capacity then I think it would be a cause for concern.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    I look forward to Hone Harawira alienating his own support base.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. iMP (2,384 comments) says:

    Dylan, Christians LEAD the debates, socially and politically. Go watch the William Wilberforce movie.

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

    Imp you have GOT to be kidding.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Grendel (1,002 comments) says:

    wow redneck you are such a douche.

    bestiality is wrong becuase animals cannot give consent.
    sex with children? duh same reason. of course you could go look for the policies of various green parties around the world to find where they have not had an issue with it.

    also the “lowering the age of consent to 12″ thing is an utter lie from you. the idea was, that in the case where two minors at least 12 years old, and no more than 2 years apart had sex, the police could choose to not prosecute, where there was no reason to other than frantic parents. this was to get around the situation where sally and steve at 12 and 14 have sex, sallys parents decide she is an angel so was clearly raped so press charges, police have no discretion so have to follow through, steves parents take the hump so sally gets charged as well. meaning both minors get charged with raping each other.

    it was a sensible bill that died because of dickheads like you assuming that somehow no more than 2 years difference in age would mean 30 year olds having sex with 12 year olds. good ability to count there muppet.

    as to triples? if you dont want to be in a relationship with 2 other people, then dont.

    but at least get your facts right you muppet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    Dylan – hell yes hate crimes mean extra rights for certain groups.

    Dime just wants everyone to be equal.

    Dime would also like the “gay community” to lighten up a bit. No one really gives a fuck if youre gay.

    Sure, some people dont like gay people. but they are about the same amount as those who dont like bald people, gingas, fat people etc who cares.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Zapper (1,021 comments) says:

    “Hey babe, you’ve got a vagina so…. wanna get married?”

    If I open with the first part, I usually close with a slightly different question :)

    Interesting that Andrei claims sodomy is satanic because it doesn’t lead to pro-creation. I wonder if he’s ever had a BJ, HJ (self or otherwise). If so, I assume he thinks he’s hell bound.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. iMP (2,384 comments) says:

    This is interesting in light of the Nat’s conference remit about gay adoption at the weeknd.

    “Marriage is a special union, carrying with it spiritual dimensions…it is a holy estate and its sanctity should not be compromised.”

    Rt Hon Jenny Shipley (2000).

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

    Sure, Christians opposed slavery eventually. And sure they fought for civil rights eventually

    Let’s be fair. Obama is a Christian and he supports gay marriage. I bet he supported it before he admitted to it as well.

    One of the good things about Christianity is that it is open to evolving standards unlike that other Abrahamic religion stuck in the 13th century.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. kowtow (8,439 comments) says:

    dime@303

    When you stick the word “equality” before or after whatever it is you want ,it immediately becomes, well the right thing to do.
    One is not allowed to argue against it as “equality” is the new ideal in society.News from the EU is full of equality,there’s no escaping it and it would appear there is no logic that can stand against it.

    I have few problems with the concept of political and legal equality ie one man one vote,equality before the law etc but now it is becoming extreme.
    Laws to enforce numbers of women on boards,in jobs not suited to them,pay rates etc
    Now it is being used to literally redefine the accepted and traditional meaning of words and concepts. Crazy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. iMP (2,384 comments) says:

    Boredboy, sorry I should have typed “led” as in historically, not “lead”. Here, try this (the opening sentence of each on Wiki…

    “William Wilberforce (24 August 1759 – 29 July 1833) was a British politician, philanthropist, and a LEADER of the movement to abolish the slave trade.”

    “Martin Luther King, Jr. (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968) was an American clergyman, activist, and prominent LEADER in the African-American Civil Rights Movement.”

    Christian thinking led on both abolition of slavery and civil rights…not “eventually.” Religion informed both at their core.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Grendel (1,002 comments) says:

    sure weihana, i bet he realised he always supported it when he saw how much money he would lose from his supporters if he did not explicitly support it. also the fact that biden came out in favour the day before obama, kind painted him into a corner on it didnt it?

    of course obama supports it so much he is going to do nothing about it and leave it to individual states to deal with rather than from the federal level as opposed to the medical marijauna debate which is so important states are not allowed to deal with it on their own and it has to be federally dictated.

    his support is lip service to not lose votes or money. i doubt he is anti gay marriage, but dont have kittens over how much he must support it. if he really supported it he would not have waited until 6 months before the election when he was about to lose millions from hollywood in donations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    …sex with children (the initial foray into that one was Labour flagging the idea of lowering the age of consent to 12)

    And just when was that? Seems like the kind of thing I’d remember.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. iMP (2,384 comments) says:

    Weihana, Obama is a Christian AND a Muslim, depending on whether he’s bowing to the king of Saud, talking to an Egyptian conference; or attending a prayer breakfast in Kentucky. If he’s talking to Benjamin Netanyahu, he’s Jewish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    iMP

    No-one will deny that some Christians were leading these movements, but it was hardly mainstream Christian thinking at the time. In the case of both slavery and the US civil rights movement the majority mainstream Christian opinion was against change.

    Similarly some Christians and churches are very in favour of same-sex marriage, so can I claim that Christians support this?

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

    Grendel,

    Obama appears to be a pragmatist. I agree his voice of support was tied to his political campaign and his prior non-admission tied to the political sensitivity of the subject. Perhaps he’s not a good example to raise, but point is there are plenty of liberal Christians.

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

    In Scandinavia there is a group who want ALL restrictions on who can marry removed. They want people to be able to marry their brother or sister or mother or father……

    They say the only reason for a ban on this at the moment is the problem of idiot offspring – but as they say with so much free contraception and free abortion there is no reason for such a coupling to produce offspring, thus the reason for restrictions no longer is valid.

    So we first have same sex marriage then next step is – well its actually incestuos marriage. Why wont this be demanded as a ‘Human Right’ and a call for ‘Equality” as well?.

    The whats after that i wonder……….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. iMP (2,384 comments) says:

    Agreed Dylan, but you can argue for a very strongly progressive current within Christian sentiment for human rights, abolition of slavery etc. Sure some were opposed (like in SA re Aparteid, but against it was guys like Bishop Desmond Tutu et al who helped bring that obscenity down). As a philosophy, it has spearheaded all sorts of liberties over the last 2000 years, including helping the infirm, children, widows, the unemployed, etc. Religion does tend to think on these things(ie “my fellow man” “my brother’s keeper) and spit them out the other end socially and politically.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Gee Dee (1 comment) says:

    Why is everyone blind to the genetic risk to children with legalised gay marriage? Legal gay marriage = legal gey kids!! Is this what children want ? do boys want closet gay fathers? do girls want closet paedo parents etc etc etc – NO! We should be protecting the genetic needs of children FIRST, then look at LGM. Funny how the media and those in power don’t want to talk about the needs of kids.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    iMP

    Ah hilarious, of course yes. A Muslim. He’s never attended a mosque or been a practising Muslim. He has been a practising Christian for more than 20 years however.

    So I guess in this case we argue he’s being a Muslim when he’s support gay-marriage? Because Islam has such liberal views on the subject.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Chthoniid (2,044 comments) says:

    I’m sorry, the grim historical reality is that for centuries most Xtians were not from the same cloth as Wilberforce.

    Even in the antebellum era in the USA, Christian leaders were still arguing that the “curse of Ham’ applied to Africans, and the black slavery holocaust in Africa had divine sanction. That Christianity “had’ to have a slavery debate demonstrates it was not leading the fight.

    The fight against slavery was motivated by humanists of varying backgrounds- whether atheists like Thomas Paine or evangelicals like Wilberforce. It was not a peculiarly Xtian movement.

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

    Good question perhaps, but has no bearing on this. At is essence marriage is a legal union between two individuals.

    If you can’t see how silly that statement is…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    If you can’t see how silly that statement is… …you’re not tied up in senseless objection to an idea based entirely on a simple word.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Griff (7,683 comments) says:

    Any witches around a nice burning would be fun how about heretics they barbecue nicely as well
    About time for a godly crusade or a nice little Inquisition. loverly pastime an inquisition Good for smiting and gnashing of teeth

    Wake up god squad your morality is being left behind Fairy tales don’t cut it anymore

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. iMP (2,384 comments) says:

    the definition of that word has massive repurcussions in many facets of life, affects people financially; we haven’t even begun to comprehend the impacts it will have on legislation alone. So it is not “senseless,” otherwise Labour would not have drafted this specific bill which is titled…”…(Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill” so it is obviously important.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Grendel (1,002 comments) says:

    Weihana, you are right, Obama is a terrible example to use :)

    i agree there are definitely socially liberal religious people out there, not as many as there could be but its a start.

    i actually think Obama is as close as you can get to a political atheist in the states as in he ‘beleives’ becuase otherwise it would be career suicide but mostly ignores it. he barely mentions religion and is clearly a pragmatic religious person. Scott Adams did a good piece on this a while back.

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

    barry (828) Says:
    July 26th, 2012 at 3:55 pm

    In Scandinavia there is a group who want ALL restrictions on who can marry removed. They want people to be able to marry their brother or sister or mother or father……

    Meh… makes no difference to me. Are you scared you are going to be attracted to your brother or sister if it’s permitted? ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    the definition of that word has massive repurcussions in many facets of life, affects people financially; we haven’t even begun to comprehend the impacts it will have on legislation alone.

    This is an entirely irrelevant argument now. It was perhaps a valid act while Civil Unions were being considered, but as it stands now Civil Union enjoys EXACTLY the same legal standing as Marriage in all but name.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. lilman (958 comments) says:

    Piss off marriage is between a man and a woman.
    Anything else is sick.
    Thats my opinion,not saying its right,but its mine.
    If yours is different congatulations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. georgebolwing (845 comments) says:

    Anyone want to venture a guess on how the sole member of ACT will vote on this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. freemark (580 comments) says:

    Well Hulun and her bitch should not have been allowed to marry, as it’s hard to tell what their respective genders are.
    I have no issues with gay sex, bi sex, hetero sex.. but WTF is the big deal about marriage?
    Kids should be able to see the differences and interaction between their M & F parents, whether separated, adopted, whatever.. it just makes sense.
    There are 1000’s of hetero couples wanting to adopt in NZ, give any available kids the chance to be placed with suitable (ie working, non-criminal, non violent) parents.
    If there aren’t any, open the ballot to allow similarly suitable alternative couples to adopt.
    And why does no one comment on my oft made suggestion to offer cash-for-sterilisation.. surely this would weed out the parents from the breeders? Or families wanting to adopt having the ability to financially “sponsor” the pregnant who are unable/unwilling to parent the result of that accidental pregnancy? The rights of children IMHO trump the rights of those who are not prepared or able to be good parents and sacrifice their own political or financial agenda.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Rufus (667 comments) says:

    To all you mental giants out there who claim marriage is a human right – how can it be a right when it relies on the agreement and cooperation of another human being?

    “It’s my right. So the government better make is so I can marry. Damn it, why won’t somebody marry me! It’s my right! Government, do something.”

    Utter bull shit.

    Marriage is a privilege. You cannot legislate for it.

    I’m coming around to the idea that we should get the government out of marriage all together.

    It’s only recently that the state started interfering. Recognise a relationship, and leave it at that.

    The state doesn’t determine whether or not you are married – your family and friends do. It’s a commitment made between a man and a woman, with their family and friends as witness.

    That bit of paper is meaningless.

    I suggest a lot of people who value the traditional, natural, historical marriage, (ie. between one man and one woman, for life) simply won’t register their marriages if this passes – because this will make everymarriage into a gay marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. wiseowl (891 comments) says:

    Marriage is between a man and a woman. End of story.
    All this BS about loving relationships equality etc shows how sad the situation has become.
    Society has been hijacked by the brainless .
    How bloody sad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Sofia (856 comments) says:

    Asked whether or not he supported gay marriage, without any reference to Wall’s bill, English said: ”I thought they could, quite honestly. I’ve got to have a look at it [the bill], I thought the problem had been solved, we’re focused on the economy.”

    English may just being obtuse.
    But it is about time that the so-called ‘Conscience Vote’ is sorted out
    Is it just for a Member to vote as she or he thinks fit
    or do they represent the Electorate who voted for them.

    Perhaps it may be put in perspective by asking “Should List MPs be allowed a conscience vote?”
    Or are they just another smallish bunch of individuals – less than a decent poll sample, and perhaps not all that intelligent or caring regarding the particular matter, if English is an example
    [and I am aware he is an Electorate Member and not List ]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. polemic (460 comments) says:

    Absolutely inshrined in Human Life since time immemorial.

    God created Man and Woman.

    Argue how you like for legalising every whimsical and unusal inclination of the Human mind but Only a Man and a Woman can become husband and wife and that is Marriage.

    If a Man and a Man want to become Husband and Husband they can call it what you like and even legalise if you want by Civil Union but if you want a Marriage it has to be a Male and a Female.

    The Sanctity of Marriage is the providential bond of all moral order in the World !

    And is enshrined in the law of ever country for centuries, no matter what greed and religion.

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

    Marriage was NEVER defined as being only between a Man and a Woman……and it was NOT a religious invention or institution. Learn some history Christo-tards.

    Marriage is open to ANY Human beings who so want it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. freemark (580 comments) says:

    No, I agree The Scorned.. it was a legal institution, and confers now no more rights than any other de facto partnership (apart from the quite reasonable further barriers to adoption, which in light of the numbers of children available is meaningless).. so what is the agenda?
    Are gays so insecure that they need this piece of paper?
    Does this piece of paper guarantee “for now and forever”?
    Is anyone really discriminated against because they are not “married’

    More and bigger things to worry about.

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

    Marriage is between one man and one woman. Not between two men, not between two women, not between men and goats, or between women and pet rocks. Those things may be relationships but they should never be described as marriage. We should esteme the optimum envionment for kids to be created and raised. This bill does the opposite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Grendel (1,002 comments) says:

    so nothing in your fairy tale book of anyone with more than one wife KK?

    i am sure we can find some biblical references that refute your position of marriage being between one man and one woman.

    try again.

    how about you just say you dont like gay people, at least you would be honest for once.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Reid (16,442 comments) says:

    Those who support this should be asked why.

    I’m picking 99.999999999999999999% of you vacant dumbos would then say: “it’s about human wights.”

    [Stamp]

    What fucking “wights?” Didn’t civil union give them that? If they want adoption they can change the adoption act, it’s not a marriage debate, it’s a separate issue. So no, you take out adoption and you recognise, logically, that it’s not about “human wights” except in the minds of you vacant dumbos who apparently are so profoundly naive you can’t even recognise a massive social engineering ploy disguised as a “human wights” issue. What a bunch of morons.

    Your ancestors who fought and died for civilisation as recently as 1945 would be fucking ashamed of you, that’s for sure. None of you bleating bleeding heart simple-minded morons are worth one drop of the blood they shed for you. Hang your heads in shame.

    And if you disagree, well go ahead. Pray explain, dumbo, precisely what “rights” we’re talking about here. Go on. I’ve asked and asked and asked and none of you, repeat none of you, have EVER answered that.

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

    Grendel – Where did I say I don’t like gay people? You’ll need to try harder for a successful smear. Feel free to find all the references you like. Marriage between one man and one woman, committed together for life is the best place to create and raise the next generation of humans – of any race or religion. My religious beliefs may give you something to jab at, but that just makes you and other Chtistian-hates look silly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Scott Chris (6,135 comments) says:

    God created Man and Woman.

    So I guess that makes God a single parent then. Wonder if he was a working God or on welfare…. (not to mention the fact that like Jesus, Adam was a bastard)

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

    Reid –

    What fucking “wights?”

    Pray explain, dumbo, precisely what “rights” we’re talking about here. Go on. I’ve asked and asked and asked and none of you, repeat none of you, have EVER answered that.

    Straight couples are ALLOWED to enter into the union of Marriage.
    Gay couples are NOT ALLOWED to enter into the union of Marriage.

    WHEN YOU SEE IT, YOU’LL SHIT BRICKS ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. wiseowl (891 comments) says:

    Well said Reid.
    The fact that we have a multitude of crank bills lining up in the Wednesday lucky dip is a crying shame.

    Goodness knows what we are going to see in the future.

    We do not have a democracy any more.

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

    Your ancestors who fought and died for civilisation as recently as 1945 would be fucking ashamed of you, that’s for sure. None of you bleating bleeding heart simple-minded morons are worth one drop of the blood they shed for you. Hang your heads in shame.

    Perilously close to the Godwin there…

    Tell me more about this “civilisation” though.

    Make as many references to the kind of political regime that rounds up and exterminates religious minorities, homosexuals, and the physically & intellectually disabled as you need.

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

    Goodness knows what we are going to see in the future.

    We do not have a democracy any more.

    Compulsory sodomy, wiseowl. That’s where this is heading… :-(

    Now bend over and get ready for your re-education to begin…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Sofia (856 comments) says:

    Reid, it is so gays can say “We are the same as you – EXACTLY the same.
    Not civilly united or any other fucking thing – just MARRIED!”
    That simple.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Michael (909 comments) says:

    If you read Genesis, God created light on day 1, but didn’t bother with the Sun and Moon were made on day 4. So God made a mistake by having light with no Sun so fixed it up three days later – proving that God isn’t perfect. Or perhaps the writer of Genesis didn’t have the same understanding of science and the physical world that those of is in the 21st Century do, so wrote a creation story that was inspired by God.

    When challenged about what one must do to enter heaven, Jesus said that you must love God. When asked what else one must do, he said “Love your neighbour” and told the story of the Good Samaratan. Rather pointedly in the story, the first two people who walked by and did nothing were Religious Leaders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Sofia (856 comments) says:

    The real question NOW is “Do you want Bill English to vote, according to what he thinks personally, or Shearer [no more intelligent] to do the same, and say their Conscience Vote is on your behalf?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. SGA (1,022 comments) says:

    @RRM 6:33
    LOL

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Griff (7,683 comments) says:

    Yahweh a God impregnated an underage human girl against her consent and outside of marriage
    And the nutters on here worship the bastard offspring of an abominable act of rape pedophilia and interspecies sex
    Sickos Xtians also commit symbolic cannibalism as part of their weirdo religion
    These nutjobs think they have the right to dictate to the rest of us on morality
    fuckoff Christians and keep your sicko fantasy god shit to your selfs

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Fletch (6,367 comments) says:

    [DPF: Polls have indicated NZers suppport same sex marriage by a 2:1 ratio, and around 8:1 for those under 30, so a referendum would I think be strongly for same sex marriage]

    Bullcrap.

    The Prime Minister’s change in stance over legalising gay marriage in New Zealand has kicked off another contentious debate this week.

    A Yahoo! poll on the issue drew nearly 20,000 votes yesterday, with opinion closely split.

    With 41% of votes, the majority believed no, gay marriage shouldn’t be made legal, while 38% believe it should.

    http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/mp/13695877/yahoo-poll-results-gay-marriage/

    I suppose that leaves 20% who don’t know. So, really, gay marriage doesn’t have that much support. Where’s this 2:1 support?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Fletch (6,367 comments) says:

    fuckoff Christians and keep your sicko fantasy god shit to your selfs [sic]

    What’s more sick? Believing in a benevolent being who made us and loves us, or – well – sodomy?

    I know what the answer is for me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Reg (539 comments) says:

    The rights arguement is a farce. Every NZer over the age of 16 has an indentical right. That is; they can marry a willing person of the opposite gender that isn’t closely related. Historically Christianity has provided the nation with it’s moral compass but as we give up the values that formed the fabric of our society and follow the path of glorifying self-gratification over commitment, we shouldn’t be suprised to witness the descent of society into moral anarchy. Some of us predicted at the time of the civil union bill, that Gay marriage and Gay adoption would soon follow, however hard the promoters of that bill denied it at the time. Next we will see the right of life further eroded and a desentitising campaign to prepare us for the legalising of polygamy.

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

    Fletch, that yahoo poll now stands at 94% in favor of gay marriage. Other polls have also found a majority in support of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. nasska (11,478 comments) says:

    Even I would draw the line at polygamy…..imagine two or three doses of pre menstrual tension a month not to mention multiple mothers in law.

    If that comes up as a member’s bill I’ll be off to buy a Bible & book a seat for the next Sunday service! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Fletch (6,367 comments) says:

    I’ve said it before – all gays want from this is our approval – something which they’ll never have.
    This guy says it well –

    To reiterate, this time specifically to the radical homosexual: on all the  issues that concern the consenting adults only, WE DON’T CARE. Of course we care in the abstract that you are leading lives of grave sin in open defiance of God, but then so do millions of “heterosexuals” who fornicate, commit adultery, use artificial contraception, sterilize themselves, and so on. Not every sin can or should be a matter for the state to concern itself with, and we are content to let God judge in these matters; but no sin, and this brings us closer to the main point here, can ever be called a virtue, no evil can ever be called a good, by any Christian with a conscience, or by any citizen who cares about the integrity of society.

    You can live as you want, engage in whatever sort of contracts you like, conduct any sort of ceremonies you please. But there is one thing you cannot have, and it is the one thing you seek through this radical political agenda, these hysterical protests and complaints about Christians: our approval. It cannot possibly be about anything else, because it is really the only thing you are missing. You want to live in a world in which everyone regards what you do and how you live not only as normal, but as a positive good. And your attempts to legalize “gay marriage” are about this and this alone.

    It is not about “equal rights” that you already possess, it is not about the freedom to openly identify as gay, which you already have. It is about using the power of the state to force society to recognize your living arrangements and lifestyle choices as legitimate. It is about policing the thoughts and opinions of the American people. It is about sharing prestige with properly and truly married couples. It is about envy and resentment, and a deep, abiding hatred of religion in general and Christianity in particular.

    Let me be blunt: your disordered lifestyles are not equal to the traditional marriage or the traditional family, which have served as the foundation of civilization since its very beginnings. You do not deserve equal prestige, and nor, for that matter, do “straight” couples who actively choose not to procreate. And you have no right to such things. You have no right to have the state give you extra benefits, tax breaks, or anything of the sort – you have no right to have your romantic choices ratified by society. You don’t have the right to go through life without being heckled or bullied, as you heckle and bully the Christians you hate, as you mock with the most disgusting outrages imaginable all that we hold sacred.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Griff (7,683 comments) says:

    There you go again fltchey .
    Bum sex aforementioned sodomy seems to be a preoccupation of sicko xtians on here. Bum sex anal intruding and all that male homosexual stuff.
    Two woman probably don’t do much bum sex so is it OK if they get married carpet licking and all. it just seems to be anal love that gets you sweating
    Is it something you picked up from your priest as a boy. Lots of others did so dont be ASHAMED of your religions history. Embrace the homo erotic history of the Cristian church choir boys nuts and all :lol:

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

    The word “marriage” and what it describes was around for centuries before Parliaments were ever invented. It’s a concept that most cultures all over the globe adopted shortly after they began living together in communities.

    The current generation in the Anglo countries have done much to undermine all that. But the weight of those societal words “wife” “husband” “marriage” “wedlock” remain central to the cultures of many people – and not only those with religious beliefs.

    Because the gay community felt they should have legal rights equal to married couples, New Zealand passed a Civil Union Act some years ago. To go further than that is all negative. It adds nothing significant to gays, but takes away a great deal from everybody else. It is not a zero sum game.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Reid (16,442 comments) says:

    Fletch, that yahoo poll now stands at 94% in favor of gay marriage. Other polls have also found a majority in support of it.

    Like I said chiz. Ask them why.

    Take that away by recognising it’s a human-wights fallacy, you recognise it’s a non-issue.

    The real issue is, so few people understand politics sufficiently to discern what’s happening. If that doesn’t scare you, in terms of “if they get away with this what next” then you have no imagination at all.

    And they are [getting away with it]. They’ve even got people ready to scream like mentals about how people who don’t agree with the policy are facists. Isn’t that totally fucked in the head A-grade through-the-looking-glass to someone who knows how many beans make five on what this really is. And there aren’t too many of us, even on the most popular two conservative blogs in NZ [this and Whale]. If that’s not serious food for thought to those with children, who wish their children to be bought up well, then I don’t know what is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    “even on the most popular two conservative blogs in NZ ”

    What utter crap. Slater and Farrar are dyed in the wool liberals. They don’t even know what “conservative” really means.

    And for you Reid to make such a claim, its clear you don’t know either.

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

    If God really cared about the ” poor orphans” who have a “right” to a Mum and Dad he wouldn’t kill their parents in the first place….The fact is there is no “right” for any child to have a Mum and dad….its fate…..

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

    Reid, the reason why so many people voted in favour of gay marriage in the yahoo poll is, I suspect, because that is what they personally believe. This may seem tautological to you but I’m not sure what other explanation there is. I’m unable to decipher the rest of your message.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Reid (16,442 comments) says:

    And for you Reid to make such a claim, its clear you don’t know either.

    RB I was referring to pop culture as it exists given those two blogs get the most traffic.

    Fletch @ 7:15, brilliant and apt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Fletch (6,367 comments) says:

    Griff, as I’ve said before many times – homosexuals can’t have sexual intercourse (coitus). They just can’t. It’s not physically possible. Sure they can stimulate one another, but that is not sex.

    Sure, the Govt can legalize it all they want, but it still won’t make it right or moral.
    They will also eventually legalize polygamy, and sex with children, but that won’t make it right, either.
    If you’re smart or rich, or lucky, maybe you’ll beat the laws of man, but the outer law of nature, and the inner law of spirit, no one can.

    You’re only fooling yourselves.

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

    I still believe that the best solution would be for the government to repeal the Marriage Act entirely. There really is no need for the government to regulate personal relationships at all.
    This way, the nutjobs could just go away and tell themselves that only a religion can marry people; and everyone else would be happy with what ever form of public ceremony they wanted to demonstrate their commitment to a relationship.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Reid (16,442 comments) says:

    The reason why so many people voted in favour of gay marriage in the yahoo poll is, I suspect, because that is what they personally believe.

    Crikey. Really?

    My point all along has been however chiz, is that what people believe over this is false and only stupid, foolish and particularly dim children could possibly fall for it it’s so completely drop dead obvious even to the dullest class clod.

    I still believe that the best solution would be for the government to repeal the Marriage Act entirely.

    So you want to abandon the unit that has created civilisation as we know it mm? Not just in western society but in every society? I see. Er… There’s a saying: “throwing out the baby with the bathwater…”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. kowtow (8,439 comments) says:

    If religion is the problem as so many here seem to think then why didn’t the great secular enlightenment revolutions,ie the American and French introduce it,given their emphasis on equality?

    Or the secular socialists in the soviet Union and China or even the much vaunted Spanish republic in 1936?

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

    Formal legal recognition of a particular domestic relationship does not make a unit that has created civilisation as we know it.

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

    Reid:is that what people believe over this is false and only stupid, foolish and particularly dim children could possibly fall for it it’s so completely drop dead obvious even to the dullest class clod.

    And yet many people are convinced that this is a summary of opposition of gay marriage.

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

    Kowtow – just because religion is the obstacle today doesn’t imply that this was always so. There were other factors – societal attitudes – that were relevant then but aren’t today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    Let John Key and his fake Nationals vote to pass this bill.

    Its just what Colin Craig needs to boost his vote at the next election.

    More people need to awaken to the fact that the sad state of this country is in the main down to the cowardice of the National Party. The passing of this bill will acheive just that objective.

    Forget the National Party.

    They are hardly distinguishable from Labour and they are not therefore the solution to the problems that NZ faces.

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

    The bible is an exceptional work of fiction. It feels silly debating the finer points of a work of fiction as though it is law.
    Personally it all gets a bit muddy for me after Adam and Eve – how could the second and third generations not involve incest somehow? Was there a clever plot twist to get around that one?
    Marriage in various forms existed before Christianity, the church has no monopoly on the concept.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Grendel (1,002 comments) says:

    geez milky, who would have thought you would have an idea that is worth agreeing with. yes the govt needs to repeal the marriage act and just make a footnote in the relevant acts that state that for the purposes of the state they recognise marriage ceremonies etc.

    we will make a libertarian out of you yet, we get the state out of this area of life, we can get them out of more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Grendel (1,002 comments) says:

    If part of supporting this bill means that Reddie and his dinosaurs hate them then its well worth any party voting for it.

    if you think that anyone other than the diehard religo nutters will let this effect their voting habits you are nuttier than usual. craig will do no better next election than the last one, probably worse.

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

    Grendel
    Happy to agree on this one. I can sometimes be a bit of a left libertarian.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    “craig will do no better next election than the last one, probably worse.”

    Craig got more votes than most minor parties combined.

    Its the liberal/ Marxist ideas you conform to that are slowly being backtracked as the tissue of lies and propaganda that has supported them for three or more decades gradually starts to break down.

    It won’t happen overnight but unless the left turn to force, (as they most likely will) they’re gone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Rufus (667 comments) says:

    @ RRM 6:27 Straight couples are ALLOWED to enter into the union of Marriage.
    Gay couples are NOT ALLOWED to enter into the union of Marriage.

    So what?

    Neither can the young.

    Marriage has always been exclusive.

    All the pro crowd here are not agitating for equality, because anyone over 16 already has the same right to marry.

    You’re using “equality” to mean “more than equal”, in fact you want special rights.

    FFS, from where do you get those “rights” you keep harping on about? Who gives them to you?

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

    Marriage has always been exclusive.

    No. Gay marriage has existed before. It happened in Rome, it happened once in twice in Europe during the middle ages.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    “It happened in Rome,”

    Well, there’s an example for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Grendel (1,002 comments) says:

    bloody hell, its hard to work out who is worse, the raging commie left or the crazy conservatives.

    i mean the left will resort to violence and try and steal whats yours but the conservatives are so very dull and want to ban anything fun.

    a plague on both of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    Grendel you’re so fucking ignorant it is sad.

    Why are you ignorant?

    Because like most NZers of the last few generations you have not been educated.

    You have been inoctrinated with Marxist cultural tenets as a substitute for education.

    This is the major problem NZ has had for so long and the fucking useless Nats have encouraged it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Andrei (2,640 comments) says:

    It happened in Rome

    Yes it did – exactly twice and it was treated with scorn and derision when it did.

    And who were these bold pioneers who anticipated the 21st century?

    The first was NERO

    The second was Heliogabalus

    Both of whom were noted for their excesses and depravity.

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

    And your evidence that it happened exactly twice is what Andrei?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. wiseowl (891 comments) says:

    Yes Red.
    You smile and wave and pander to the diverse groups , surrounding yourself in glory.
    Meanwhile as it dawns on, hopefully, a large enough chunk of the population , there will be a significant shift to the likes of the Conservative Party and a re-balancing of the stupidity we have been experiencing .

    Then the wave will be a wave goodbye.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Grendel (1,002 comments) says:

    sure red, marxist indoctrination. whatever you say.

    as it turns out, you are the ignorant one, assuming that its important to judge whatever people do in the privacy of their own home, or how they live their lives. you are as bad as the marxists becuase you want to interfere in peoples lives.

    actually you are worse, becuase they know they are interfering and dont care, you think you are doing it for peoples own good.

    ignorant, interfering statist red.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Reid (16,442 comments) says:

    as it turns out, you are the ignorant one, assuming that its important to judge whatever people do in the privacy of their own home, or how they live their lives.

    Grendel this issue has nothing to do with that. Thinking it does is not uncommon but it’s a huge mistake. You’re just falling straight into the propaganda if you justify your position on this issue on the grounds you outline in your 8:17.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Rufus (667 comments) says:

    Chiz – “it happened once or twice in history…”

    yes, thereby proving that it is exactly the same as marriage. /sarc

    Chiz, you mental pygmy, answer this – was it accepted as the norm, celebrated as something to be emulated?

    Nope, doubt it. It was never held to be the same as man-woman marriage – because even the ancients realised that a strong family was the cornerstone of society.

    Even the boy-loving Greeks encouraged their men to get their acts together and marry a woman and raise kids. They viewed homosexual relationships as different.

    Chiz logic: Man-boy love was accepted in ancient Greece. Therefore, it should be again.

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

    Gay marriage in ancient Rome.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Andrei (2,640 comments) says:

    assuming that its important to judge whatever people do in the privacy of their own home

    Typical twisting of facts to suit an agenda.

    Nobody cares what people do in the privacy of their own homes – NOBODY

    Marriage however is a public institution because …….

    Because it assigns the responsibility of the children arising from that union to the parents of those children and not to anyone else!

    You leftoids are remarkably dense, dense to the point of abysmal stupidity

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

    Rufus – you claimed that marriage had always been recognized as being between a man and a woman and I pointed out to you that wasn’t true.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Rufus (667 comments) says:

    Chiz 7:50 “societal attitudes”.

    Not very smart to mess with important issues, simply based on current, faddish, malleable “societal attitudes”.

    Attitudes change. Fashion is fickle. Plebs are malleable.

    Are you happy with the direction the Ukraine is taking – I mean they’re simply going on their own “societal attitudes”, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. big bruv (13,884 comments) says:

    Thanks to Andrei and his ilk I am now a huge fan of allowing gays to marry.

    Anything that sticks it up (fun fully intended) the sky fairy bigots is always going to be OK with me.

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

    All these claims that gay marriage will tear our civilisation asunder.

    But no-one can quite explain how, or in what way, it will do this…

    Interesting! ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Rufus (667 comments) says:

    Chiz –

    1. on. the. whole.

    Generally.

    There are always outliers.

    2. you replied to my statement that “marriage has always been exclusive”. Different argument. Your answer doesn’t engage with this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. wiseowl (891 comments) says:

    RRM
    Pointless trying to explain to people who don’t have the capacity to comprehend.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    Hardly matters does it RRM when Marxist scum like you and Bigot Bruv have for so long pushed all of the ideas that have made it the fucked up abortion it is today. Can you really make it much worse?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Rufus (667 comments) says:

    Chiz – I love your 8:29 link.

    All the ancient writers wrote about gay marriage in Rome as something absurd, debauched, ridiculous.

    Read what they wrote, man.

    If it was normal, accepted, mundane, they wouldn’t have mentioned it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Rufus (667 comments) says:

    RRM – Rome

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Rufus (667 comments) says:

    big bruv, that is a very well-reasoned, rational, tolerant approach you have there.

    Always good to mess with society, just to piss someone else off.

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

    So in other words if there people in Rome who weren’t offended by gay marriage and therefore wouldn’t have mentioned it how would we know it. Your own argument undermines itself.

    Different argument. Your answer doesn’t engage with this.

    What was your argument then? You claimed that marriage was exclusive and I took that to meant exclusively between a man and a woman.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    Bigot Bruv is bi-sexual.

    For a period of time he wrote on Kiwiblog (under another nick) as a homosexual.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. big bruv (13,884 comments) says:

    Rufus

    You and your angry mate Redbaiter are the ones who want to mess with society.

    I am sick of sky fairy followers demanding that the rest of the world lives by their own fucked up set of values.

    What does it matter to you or me if two blokes want to get married?, what does it matter if a couple of chicks want to do the same?

    You and your equally tolerant pal Redbaiter can start to piss and moan when they make it compulsory, until then I have no problem at all if another couple want to marry each other. Just as long as they do not expect me to pay for it in any way then they can rip into it as far as I am concerned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. wiseowl (891 comments) says:

    bi-blogual?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    “Pointless trying to explain to people who don’t have the capacity to comprehend.”

    Damn right.

    Can’t help but notice that most of the pro team are as thick as three short planks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Rufus (667 comments) says:

    Chis – exclusive as in society won’t just let anyone marry. You have to meet certain conditions. It has always been this way.

    One of those conditions is that only a man can marry a woman and vice versa.

    Re: Rome – You really can’t see how those ancient Roman writers are writing to show how ridiculous Nero’s actions were?

    Read it again. Tacitus was disgusted. Marial mocked the whole thing. IT WAS NOT NORMAL.

    Likewise, why do you think they wrote about a little-known carpenter from Judea?

    Because he was different.

    He caused a stir.

    Still does.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. big bruv (13,884 comments) says:

    Never mind old Redbaiter, he is pissed at the whole world it seems. Things have not gone well for him these past few months.

    Obama turns out to be an American after all. Sarah (I can see Russia from my house) Palin did not come back to sweep the Tea party moonbats into power. Obama is going to win in a landslide, and to top it all off, just this week we have seen why the Yanks need stronger gun controls and the argument put forward by the NRA and the Tea party wankers about needing more guns has been hammered once again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Andrei (2,640 comments) says:

    All these claims that gay marriage will tear our civilisation asunder.

    But no-one can quite explain how, or in what way, it will do this…

    Yes we can – whether or not you have the mental capacity to grasp the fundamntal concept is another matter.

    See people live in this modern era about eighty years, about 30 of which they are not productive, those being the first and last 15 years of life.

    In order to continue as a race, some of the productive years of the human life cycle needs to be dedicated to raising our successors and our resources need to be put into this fundamental activity.

    Thus societies that wish to prosper into the future encourage the procreation and nurturing of the young. All human experience has found that by bonding a man to a woman is the best and most humane way to go about ensuring that there are future generations and thus the institution of marriage came into existence. When it is strong societies flourish but when it is weak those societies are overwhelmed and die – as many have over the years.

    Now our culture over the past forty years has not placed a premium of child raising, not made it cool if you will and as a result we have an aging population. that will have to be supported by the ever decreasing younger generations – whose resources will be diverted ever more to the aged at the expense of the young – we are in our death spiral already.

    Gay marriage is the coup de grace since it completely severs the importance of reproduction from marriage and rewrites it into a validation of whatever you fancy.

    And why should I as an individual put my energies and resources into children when others are not and are prospering as a result?

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

    ‘Likewise, why do you think they wrote about a little-known carpenter from Judea? Because he was different.’

    Yes, Jesus was gay.

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

    “I have no problem at all if another couple want to marry each other. Just as long as they do not expect me to pay for it in any way then they can rip into it as far as I am concerned.”

    That is the problem – they do. Increased rates of STDs including HIV and increased cases of adolescents being sexually abused are a bi-product of the so called sex education this lot promote. The latest demand is part of it. If the they want to take in up the arse or lick each other anus I will not moan about the extra health cost but when they want to diddle with underage adolescents minds that is a different matter. Normalising same same relationships is doing this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Nostalgia-NZ (5,193 comments) says:

    ‘whatever you fancy.’

    I hope they don’t decide to put a tax on that.

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

    ‘when it is weak those societies are overwhelmed and die – as many have over the years’.

    Got any examples of such societies (that have been overwhelmed and died because marriage was weak)?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Red says……as thick as three short planks.

    There I was thinking that it was……… as two short planks. It must be my marxist liberal progressive passive aggressive indoctrination and an inability to comprehend loony ravings from probably the saddest unit in the Bay Of Plenty.

    Mind you, Andrei is making Red look like a shining light of reason and well balanced argument

    Chuck, you’re drawing a pretty long bow there yourself

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

    This about sums it up.

    http://screencast.com/t/MdlqJNw2Tn1

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. iMP (2,384 comments) says:

    [DPF: Polls have indicated NZers suppport same sex marriage by a 2:1 ratio, and around 8:1 for those under 30, so a referendum would I think be strongly for same sex marriage]

    Campbell Live poll tonight.

    58% against s-sex marriage 32% for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Nostalgia-NZ (5,193 comments) says:

    Old Chucky boy who ever would have thought you’d write such a thing as you did at 9.00pm.
    That would get some folks reaching for the smelling salts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. big bruv (13,884 comments) says:

    Chuck

    “That is the problem – they do. Increased rates of STDs including HIV and increased cases of adolescents being sexually abused are a bi-product of the so called sex education this lot promote. The latest demand is part of it. If the they want to take in up the arse or lick each other anus I will not moan about the extra health cost but when they want to diddle with underage adolescents minds that is a different matter. Normalising same same relationships is doing this.”

    And you have proof of this or are you simply another bigot who has an unhealthy obsession with what gay couples get up to?

    Oh…and please don’t tell me you are a follower of the Catholic faith, the hypocrisy would be unbearable.

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

    So, in other words Rufus, I did understand you after all. You were claiming that marriage was between man and a woman even thought historically that was, and is, not the case. Polygamy has been widespread throughout history and occurs today. Some societies practice group marriage, and a least one society today in China doesn’t have marriage in any form. Gay marriage has also existed on occasion.

    And yes, I understand that Tacitus and the others cited were disapproving of gay marriage but you cannot generalise from the fact that some people back then disapproved of it to the claim that most people disapproved of it, without further evidence. You yourself pointed out that if was accepted that they wouldn’t have mentioned it. By your reasoning therefore if there were other writers back then who saw no problem with it then they wouldn’t have written about it, and, by your reasoning, the only people who would have written about were the ones who didn’t approve of it. Therefore if there were other people back then who approved of it, then, by your reasoning, we wouldn’t have any evidence of it.

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

    A gentile reminder of how things are meant to be.

    http://screencast.com/t/MdlqJNw2Tn1

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

    What does it matter…

    It matters because it devalues the public relationship that is the optimum one for creating and raising the next generation of humans. It suggests that everything’s the same, that all relationship type are identical in terms of their impact on the raising of children. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Rick Rowling (813 comments) says:

    Thank you kiwibloggers for this epic thread. And not a single invocation of Godwin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. big bruv (13,884 comments) says:

    KK

    It does not devalue a heterosexual relationship at all. Many straight couples raise kids without the bother of getting married (are you brave enough to decry them as well?)
    Throughout history we have had thousands of people who did not have kids, we might have called them spinsters or bachelors in the old days and the odds were that many of them were gay. Did that have any effect on the number of kids that were born?…of course it did not.

    It amazes me why so many people have are obsessed at what goes on in the bedrooms of other people, quite frankly it is none of our business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. big bruv (13,884 comments) says:

    “Can you really make it much worse?”

    It could be worse if we were ever collectively dumb enough to elect a government that passed laws based on a book of fiction.

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

    Ha BB,we do that every election – it’s called a manifesto!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Rufus (667 comments) says:

    Chiz – “you cannot generalise from the fact that some people back then disapproved of it to the claim that most people disapproved of it, without further evidence”

    You are trying to do the exact same thing here – trying to prove homosexual marriage was the norm, celebrated for being as wonderful and useful to society as marriage.

    Your evidence to date has been some random, weird, isolated pockets of humanity.

    Note – Polygamy, though not my ideal of 1 man+1 woman, is still man-woman marriage. It creates family. It raises kids.

    You can’t use it as evidence for your claim that homo marriage has always been accepted as normal behaviour.

    The fact Tacitus, Martial et al wrote and decried the practice suggests that it wasn’t accepted as normal in Roman society.

    You have not given me any proof that it was.

    Note I do not dispute that homosexuality was around. It was. As was pedophilia. And any other deviant behaviour.

    Please prove to me, with evidence, that homosexual marriage, throughout history, was accepted as normal, on par with heterosexual marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Rufus (667 comments) says:

    Rick, yet. The night is young.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. big bruv (13,884 comments) says:

    mikenmild

    How I wish we did still have manifesto’s. Imagine that, being able to hold the bastards to account for what they promised.

    Sadly, the old manifesto went west with the introduction of the undemocratic MMP system.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    I keep thinking the standard of discourse can’t possibly get much lower than the left commonly take it on this blog, and then that mentally abbreviated Marxist loon Bigot Bruv turns up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. big bruv (13,884 comments) says:

    “Note I do not dispute that homosexuality was around. It was. As was pedophilia.”

    Yes it was, today we just call it the Catholic Church.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Grendel (1,002 comments) says:

    actually redweenie, we have gotten rid of most of the people who lower the standard of discourse here, but you, phil, hte crazy waterwoman and the people on duty from the stranded sneak back occasionally, and of course all the religo nuts like andrei, KK and the woman whos kids will need a shit load of therapy to undo her parenting Lucia all flock back to rant and rave whenever a freedom is extended to those people who your fairy sky god (well supposedly his book says) says are bad.

    you rant on about tradition, but ignore the facts that show your tradition has changed anyway, and yet still never show an actual cogent example of what will go wrong.

    some of you are obsessed with breeding, and seem to think that extending marriage to the 10% of the population who are gay will somehow end the population as we know, but i dont see you demanding that childless straight married couples be forced to breed. so thats a non answer as a portion of the population never breeds.

    so try again, what will actually go wrong. as bruv says, when they make gay marriage compulsory then you have something legitimate to bitch about, until then, just go and hide in your sky pixies house.

    or, if you really do follow the carpenter from judeas teaching, forgive us. all the hate you preach is not really what JC was about (assuming he existed, which you clearly do).

    or you could just call me a marxist (as if you know what the word means) and dribble some more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Reid (16,442 comments) says:

    This issue shares many of the same dynamics as does this issue, except the people who are most affected by both, are least aware of what the parallels even are, let alone what to do about them.

    Sad really. And ironic. And a whole lot of other things. I’m just real glad at least I’m not sleep-walking through life, even though a shitload of others are giving a damn good impression of doing just that.

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

    bb – simple question for you: setting aside individual cases to the contrary, is a long term committed relationship between a mother and a father the best place for their biological offspring to be raised? if yes, then why wouldn’t we hold out that class of relationship as a distinct, ideal model? We could call it, say, marriage to differentiate it from the myriad of other relationship types.

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

    Grendel – Show me how I’m a religo nut, or are you really unable to engage without resorting to anti-Christian ad hominems?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. polemic (460 comments) says:

    Oh so all the ranting above still changes nothing.

    What rights, commitments and responsibilities will Gay Marriage give to the recipients?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. big bruv (13,884 comments) says:

    KK

    Your argument is irrelevant given that as far as I am aware it is bloody near impossible for two gay men to produce any biological offspring.

    As for the class of relationship, well I will ask you again, are you suggesting that those of us in a hetrosexual relationship and who have produced children of our own, but did not bother getting married, are lesser parents than those who got married?

    The point is KK that those who are against same sex marriage can drag up as many spurious arguments as they wish, the reality is that anybody who is apposed to it does so on the basis of either ignorance or religious bigotry.

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

    Gay marriage is the coup de grace since it completely severs the importance of reproduction from marriage and rewrites it into a validation of whatever you fancy.

    Andrei –

    So… you are saying that if we introduce a legal concept called "gay marriage", people who otherwise would have been heterosexual and spent their lives productively having babies (for the greater good of Mother Country) will suddenly turn their life around and be gay instead, just because the nation's laws say it's ok?

    There’s no-one quite as socialist as a hard-core conservative.
    Reading this blog I’m reminded of that again and again. :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. big bruv (13,884 comments) says:

    polemic

    It will give them the right to suffer the terrors of a mother in law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Sofia (856 comments) says:

    Prime Minister John Key said he expects MPs will follow their own conscience, and he will personally be supporting it at its first reading.

    Isn’t 120 individuals a little less than the number usually considered a viable sample for an accurate poll on anything?

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

    bb – simple question for you: setting aside individual cases to the contrary, is a long term committed relationship between a mother and a father the best place for their biological offspring to be raised? if yes, then why wouldn’t we hold out that class of relationship as a distinct, ideal model? We could call it, say, marriage to differentiate it from the myriad of other relationship types.

    Why, how very collectivist of you KK ;-)

    YOU have been very vocal in opposition of Cullen setting a superannuation fund; on the basis that why should the state dare to profess that it knows how to invest the citizen’s money better than the citizen himself does, if I recall correctly.

    It’s amazing how the tune changes when it’s the government restricting other people’s marriage choices instead of the Govt restricting other people’s investment choices.

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

    bb – I am not suggesting anything, other than we reserve the title of married to the optimum form of relationship, so that those couples who biologically qualify, and so choose can take it up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. polemic (460 comments) says:

    big bruv-

    How do you get a mother – let alone a mother in law from a Gay Marriage.

    Sorry to point out such a simple point to you but to get a biological mother you need a Man and a Women.

    Biology 101 old chap!

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

    How do you get a mother – let alone a mother in law from a Gay Marriage.

    Sorry to point out such a simple point to you but to get a biological mother you need a Man and a Women.

    Polemic, polemic, polemic…

    Every homosexual has a mother and a father. So if one homosexual marries another, he gains a mother-in-law.

    I’m sorry if you find this confusing.

    But homosexuals are human beings and as such they have parents. Biology 101 old chap!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. big bruv (13,884 comments) says:

    Polemic

    RRM beat me to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. polemic (460 comments) says:

    Ah yes but then what happens to the next generation?

    Still Biology 101

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. big bruv (13,884 comments) says:

    RRM

    “But homosexuals are human beings”

    Hang on a moment!, have you checked with Redbaiter and Andrei before making such a wild and unproven statement?

    I mean has the Sky Fairy said that homosexuals are humans?

    Best you get your facts straight first RRM :)

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

    Ah yes but then what happens to the next generation?

    Still Biology 101

    I think the two people who remain straight following the introduction of gay marriage will just have to work overtime at doing everyone else’s breeding as well as their own…?

    Oh wait, that’s right, the lesbians will still be having babies, as they do now. (That shit’s biology 317 though, best we get our baby steps right first eh?)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. big bruv (13,884 comments) says:

    polemic

    A bit of advice old chap, when you are in a hole it is best to stop digging.

    You fucked up, it happens, take your medicine and move on.

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

    BB –

    If the homosexual marriage thing ever comes to pass, the first day after will be an amusing one to behold.

    It will be easy to identify the polemics, redbaiters of the world, as they make their way to work with their backs to the walls lest some newly liberated homosexual sneaks up on him and marries him up the arse, as though some kind of homosexual zombie apocalypse was upon us…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. Grendel (1,002 comments) says:

    RRM, i did not need that visual image, though its hilarious :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. polemic (460 comments) says:

    Big Brv- my point is you still need a Man and a Woman- Yes?
    So still Biology 101 ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    “Grendel – Show me how I’m a religo nut, or are you really unable to engage without resorting to anti-Christian ad hominems?”

    No he is not. Like so many of the pro crowd here he is unable to even come close to a comprehensive understanding of the issues.

    Stunted in his mental development, he has been indoctrinated in a school system largely controlled by Marxists and who have converted it from an education service into a “socialisation” service, where the intent is to ensure that everyone who passes through it comes out with views that the controllers consider “approved”.

    There is no free thought permitted. Free speech too is severely restricted. Critical thinking is barred. Unquestioning obeisance to the progressive political dictates of the central bureaucracy is rewarded.

    So we end up with two or three generations of dull malleable knuckle-draggers who know nothing of what came before them and have only the contempt of the ignorant for anyone not like them.

    The cultural Marxists have two or three generations of our offspring under their complete control, and the ignorance and bigotry and hate that you see on display here is the result.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Grendel (1,002 comments) says:

    oh look reddie went for option 3, call me a marxist and rant about nothing.

    theres a shock.

    you have no idea about my education, views etc. just like you have no idea about most things.

    extremely ignorant bigot you are redweenie. and extremely dull, just becuase we dont oppose freedoms for all members of society does not make us marxists. the fact that you wish to use the state to deny equality to others actually makes you the marxist.

    Marxist red weenie, using the state to try and control what he fears.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    “you have no idea about my education, views etc.”

    Sad intellectually crippled idiot.

    You make both those issues very easily understood in the poorly reasoned, ignorant and intolerant comments you always write here.

    If you had even the faintest idea, you would understand that “equality” (applied here rightly or wrongly) is a completely Marxist concept.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. big bruv (13,884 comments) says:

    “There is no free thought permitted. Free speech too is severely restricted. Critical thinking is barred. Unquestioning obeisance to the progressive political dictates of the central bureaucracy is rewarded. ”

    Brilliant!!

    This from a man who claims that one cannot call themselves a Conservative unless they have a slavish and unquestioning adherence to the bible (well known to be a work of fiction).
    This from a man who will not tolerate anybody claiming to be a Conservative who also happens to be a supporter of individual human rights.
    This from a man who will not allow criticism of religious moonbats like Palin, Bachman and Colin Craig.

    I wonder if he ever stops and considers that the very thing he has waged his own private war (and yet achieved nothing at all in over ten years of “fighting”) against is exactly the same sort of tyranny that he wishes to impose upon the rest of us……all in the name of the bible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. polemic (460 comments) says:

    Big bruv with fear of repeating myself…

    Big Brv- my point is you still need a Man and a Woman- Yes?
    So still Biology 101 ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. Concentrate (29 comments) says:

    @ Redbaiter you have a lot of nerve mentioning ad hominum, all your post are basically…

    10. Insult commenters intelligence.
    20. Call commenter a Marxist.
    30. Go to 10.

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

    big bruv AKA Clint Heine – how do you feel about the fact that the supposed ‘Libertarian’ party you support (ACT) has a homophobic Christian as its leader and sole MP?

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

    Polemic: Remarkably intelligent side debate you’ve launched on the biology of mothers in law. Looking forward to Biology 201.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. Danny-boy (102 comments) says:

    Common arguments against:

    Next, people will be able to marry their pets or their children!
    Animals and children don’t have the ability to enter into contracts.

    God intended marriage to be between a man and a woman!
    What “God intended” is irrelevant to a government that observes the separation between religion and state. Marriage, as defined under the law, is independent of religion. Whatever rituals and ceremonies you engage in the privacy of your own churches, are up to you. They have nothing whatever to do with marriage as defined under the law.

    Broadening the definition of marriage means bigger government!
    You can’t have it both ways. You can’t demand the government recognize your particular rituals and then complain about the apparatus needed to support it. If you’re for small government and against the state getting involved in personal lives, you should be arguing against the state recognizing ANY form of personal relationship, including between a man and a woman.

    The purpose of marriage is to create and raise children!
    Presumably the infertile, the elderly, and those who plain just don’t want kids also shouldn’t be allowed to marry. The response to this is invariably some odd, circular argument around “exceptions”, and that because two men or two women cannot create children under any circumstances (without external assistance), this should exclude them from marriage. However, even if we accept this, you have not established that the fact that whether (1) in your younger days, (2) if you weren’t infertile, (3) assuming you wanted to, that it was POSSIBLE for you to have children without assistance should be the determining factor as to whether you can be married. It seems a very tortuous definition specifically designed to exclude gay marriage rather than be the basis of marriage in general.

    One final point: a common claim from those opposed is, “I have no problem with what gays do in the privacy of their own homes, but gay marriage is a step too far.” The thing is, 30 years ago, before homosexuality had been decriminalized in NZ, they were exactly the kind of people who DID have a problem with what gays do in the privacy of their own homes, raising the same old arguments invoking “sin”, the specter of Communism, and the End of Days. In 30 years’ time, just as you don’t have a problem with what gays do in the privacy of their own homes today, you won’t have a problem with gay marriage then. It’s called enlightenment. Some people are slower to catch on than others.

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

    polemic –

    Yes you do need a man & a woman to make babies.

    You don’t however need a marriage to make a baby.

    So where are you going with the biology 101 thing?

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

    • Tauhei Notts (1,070) Says:
    July 26th, 2012 at 3:16 pm
    Lastmanstanding at 2.43 p.m.
    Absolutely spot on.
    Marriage is a sacred contract between man and woman. If that is too hard for anybody to comprehend then that nincompoop can be ignored. Civil union legislation covers the situation where same sex people wish to enter into a contract that is similar to marriage.

    This goes to show that you cannot put people in boxes. I would never have thought Tauhei and I would have agree on this issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. kiwi in america (2,441 comments) says:

    Fascinating thread with some sad rants from anti Christians and anti gay marriage advocates. Some thoughts:
    * When US voters are asked if they are in favour of gay marriage they tell the pollsters “sure” and polls usually show a plurality now in theoretical support – when they go into the polling booth and actually VOTE on same sex marriage ballot initiatives or amendments to State Constitutions in favour of traditional marriage they vote (usually quite strongly) for traditional marriage in state after state. Even very liberal California passed Prop 8 53/47. If this issue was put to the ballot in NZ I think you’d find the same albeit with the margin smaller between the two camps because NZ is a more socially liberal country. NZ would likely mirror the CA result.

    * Every practising gay I know couldn’t give a toss about being married – they see it as a heterosexual institution. If you use reputable neutral and statistically significant sample size surveys of sexual orientation (not agenda driven ones) exclusively homosexually oriented people comprise max 3% of the population. Only 10% of gay men are in what could be described as a monogamous marriage like relationship as most gay male relationships are temporary, transitory and a sizeable percentage are sexually active with more than one partner so the gay male couple together for 20 years is a rarity amonst gay men. Lesbian women are usually far more stable but more likely to see marriage as male patriarchy thing and not care for it. My point is that the numbers wanting gay marriage is a small subset of a small subset. Why upend a centuries old institution to cater for what may end up being less than 2,000 people in NZ.

    * Despite all the rhetoric about equality, this push is not about equality because a Civil Union (actually even before Civil Unions) grants a gay couple full, total and absolute legal equality across all matters relevant to relationships. I do believe it is about forcing acceptance. Gay activists are the ones at the pointy edge of hate crimes laws and the push for gay marriage. None of the gays I know are into that kind of in your face advocacy – they want to get on with their lives and relationship with a minumum of fuss.

    * What two people choose to do in their bedroom is their business – it is absolutely wrong to persecute or taunt gays, to discriminate against them or to deny them equal rights compared to married couples under the law but gays cannot ask people to accept the normality of their lifestyle choice. To many people (I would venture to say still the majority) man on man or woman on woman sexuals acts are not natural. It is significant that the act of procreation is and always will be only possible between a man and a woman (or using male and female reproductive aspects such as artificial insemination). People have the right to choose how they express themselves sexually but gay advocates want all heterosexuals to not just not discriminate against them but to 100% accept what they do as normal. No law anywhere will make that happen even if you threaten prison to those who say its not normal.

    * There have been very few studies on the effects of gay relationships on children that are not published by proponents of gay marriage and that interview large numbers of children from these relationships as many published studies interview the gay parents who of course say everything is great. A recent study published in Social Science Research http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610 found:
    – 12% of those with a lesbian mother and 24% of those with a gay father reported having recently contemplated suicide, compared to only 5% raised by an intact biological family or a single parent.
    – 28% of those raised by a lesbian mother and 20% of those raised by a gay father reported being currently unemployed, compared to 8% raised by an intact biological family and 13% raised by a single parent.
    – 23% of those with a lesbian mother reported having been touched sexually by a parent or adult, compared to 2% of those raised in an intact biological family while 6% among those with a gay father and 10% with a single parent.
    – 31% of those raised by a lesbian mother, and 25% of those raised by a gay father, reported being forced to have sex against their will at some point, compared to just 8% of those raised by their biological parents.
    – 40% of those raised by a lesbian mother and 25% raised by a gay father reported having had an affair while married or cohabiting, compared to 13% of those raised by their biological parents. And 19% of those raised by a lesbian mother or gay father were currently or recently receiving psychotherapy, compared to 8% of those raised by their heterosexual parents
    – 20% of those raised by lesbians and 25% of those raised by gay men reported having contracted a sexual transmitted infection, compared to 8% of those raised by their biological parents.
    – Only 61% of those raised by a lesbian mother and 71% of those raised by a gay father reported identifying as “entirely heterosexual,” compared to 90% of those raised by an intact biological family.
    This study shows that heterosexual marriage (with all its flaws) affords better outcomes than gay relationships.

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

    “That is the problem – they do. Increased rates of STDs including HIV and increased cases of adolescents being sexually abused are a bi-product of the so called sex education this lot promote. The latest demand is part of it. If the they want to take in up the arse or lick each other anus I will not moan about the extra health cost but when they want to diddle with underage adolescents minds that is a different matter. Normalising same same relationships is doing this.”

    And you have proof of this or are you simply another bigot who has an unhealthy obsession with what gay couples get up to?

    Bruv or is it Clint if you have ever bother to read on the subject if you are not homosexual you would know that homosexuals are greatly over represented in STD statistics particularly HIV.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. Paulus (2,626 comments) says:

    Who cares except those publicity seeking homosexuals seeking to make such your way of life

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

    Danny-boy (91) Says:
    July 27th, 2012 at 4:29 am

    Common arguments against:

    Good on you for putting in the effort to write out your post and address those arguments in a rational, polite manner. Don’t be surprised though if the bigoted Christians who are the perfect representation of Jesus’ rage do not respond to you and just ignore your post as if it doesn’t exist and continue ranting on and using the exact same arguments the next time the gay marriage debate is brought up on this blog. One word to sum up the Christians here on Kiwiblog – judgmental and angry. Pretty much like a brood of vipers, actually.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. polemic (460 comments) says:

    Thankyou RRM

    So if you need a man and a woman to produce a child then with that go’s responsibility to care for that child (yes I know there are a number of irresponsible parents out there)

    So since the beginning of time that relationship has been formalised and solemnised and the committment that goes with it is the structure of the family- that structure has brought order to society.(yes there is broken families around but the vast majority all around the world remain together)

    If you want to have some other relationship then why do you want it called the same name as something quite different.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. Scott (1,792 comments) says:

    Kiwi in America – great post.

    Some additional thoughts from me – I cannot understand how the National party is allowing this to happen. I would have thought we would have been spared more social engineering once Labour got tossed out of government. But apparently not.I think this would be very low priority amongst most National voters. Indeed I would have thought that National voters would be generally again something like this.

    One can also see the damage done by unelected list MPs under the MMP system. Unelected list MP Louisa Wall is introducing this bill.She was an electorate MP but was rejected by that electorate and now comes back on the list. the list MPs of the Greens are major backers of this legislation. One saw in previous years the damage that unelected list MP Sue Bradford did with the anti-smacking legislation. I am coming around to the view that under MMP we have a number of fierce radicals in Parliament who would not generally be elected under the first past the post system where you had to gain the confidence of your electorate.

    returning to my wrath against the National government. They did nothing to overturn the anti-smacking legislation which 85% of the electorate opposed. Probably closer to 95% of National voters would oppose. But they chose to do nothing.

    Now they are allowing same-sex marriage? Like some others I do look forward to the rise of a more conservative party that would be representative of the founding principles that the actual National party is supposed to stand for. The National party appears to have been taken over by urban Liberals who want more free market but in all other respects are indistinguishable from their counterparts of the far left.

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

    @Scott,

    Actually, Lousia Wall was elected as the MP for Manurewa in November. And it is in that elected capacity that her private members bill was lodged and subsequently drawn in the ballot.

    (which is not an opinion on her merits or her bill, merely a statement that – under your view of the mandate of MPs – she has the mandate to submit such a bill as the elected representative of an electorate of voters.)

    Now they are allowing same-sex marriage?

    “They” are doing no such thing – it is to be a conscience vote where each National Party MP will vote independently.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. Scott (1,792 comments) says:

    bhudson– quite right– I stand corrected.

    It is a conscience vote. But National is allowing this piece of legislation to come to a first reading? They are allowing this to happen. The government is elected to govern. I did not see anywhere that same-sex marriage was part of their mandate from the electorate.

    I would have thought that most National voters would be against this. I would be very surprised that the average National voter considers this a high priority.

    And my point still remains. That this government who has done nothing about repealing anti-smacking legislation is allowing same-sex marriage to possibly become law. If we want legislation like this then people should vote labour. The charge of national being labour light is becoming harder and harder to argue against.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    Scott-

    There is a positive to this.

    This is an opportunity to turn voters away from the traitors who control the National Party today.

    If the Labour National far left coalition revolving door monopoly on government can be broken it is only good for NZ.

    If the cowardly Nats allow this bill to pass they will be cutting their own throats.

    If they do it, it will mean a huge increase in votes for the Conservative Party next election, and even though the Conservatives are not perfect, they are the best chance NZ has had in a while to break the progressive stranglehold on NZ politics.

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

    KIA – Great comment. Thanks for that.

    Jimmy Smits –

    One word to sum up the Christians here on Kiwiblog – judgmental and angry. Pretty much like a brood of vipers, actually

    Funny that. Most of the anger I see around here, here, here, and here seems comes from those who hate Christians.

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

    Grendel –

    oh look reddie went for option 3, call me a marxist and rant about nothing.

    Yes, but why change a proven formula?? :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    The “gay marriage” issue is just another head on the hydra of cultural Marxism.

    Cultural Marxism and its primary instruments of political correctness and critical theory are, at its heart, an effort to dissolve the foundations on which Western culture was built. It is a demolition project to undermine western civilization in whatever way possible and build a brave new world from the rubble. Once our culture has been untethered from its historical underpinnings, the PC intelligentsia in academia, government, bureaucracy, entertainment and media can move on in and steer the ship of culture to new shores.

    Multiculturalism for example is not borne out of love and concern for other ethnicities, it is an orchestrated effort to crowd out and weaken the traditions of the host culture.

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

    krazykiwi (8,171) Says:
    July 27th, 2012 at 11:50 am

    KIA – Great comment. Thanks for that.

    Jimmy Smits –

    One word to sum up the Christians here on Kiwiblog – judgmental and angry. Pretty much like a brood of vipers, actually

    Funny that. Most of the anger I see around here, here, here, and here seems comes from those who hate Christians.

    Is that so? Well then let me refer you to here:

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/07/same_sex_marriage_bill_drawn.html#comment-1001143

    Here:

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/07/same_sex_marriage_bill_drawn.html#comment-1001209

    Here:

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/07/same_sex_marriage_bill_drawn.html#comment-1001220

    And here:

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/07/same_sex_marriage_bill_drawn.html#comment-1001031

    I mean, why should people read the Gospels when there’s no shortage of Christians showing the Christian attitude here in the comments? It would be great if all of New Zealand read the comments on this blog, it is the perfect representation of Jesus’ love.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. kiwi in america (2,441 comments) says:

    Scott
    I understand your sentiment – the fact is that sooner or later a bill of this nature was going to be drawn from the ballot so the fact that Louisa Wall submitted it is less relevant. The sad reality is that the bill is likely to pass because there are fewer social conservatives in the NZ Parliament. This is not so much a left right thing although its fair to say that left leaning parties tend to support social liberalisation of any hew. National have had a long tradition of selecting urban social liberals (eg Marilyn Waring) and many in ACT are libertarians who tend to have liberal social views (eg Brash on cannabis decriminalisation). This will be a conscience vote so party affiliation is less relevant.

    If this issue were put to a referredum in NZ (as is often the case in the US) the general public are more socially conservative hence why pro gay marriage proponents in the US have to resort to liberal appeal court judges (eg California’s Supreme Court overruling the will of the people on Prop 8) or liberal legislatures to ge their way because they know the people always vote against gay marriage initiatives if given the chance. In Massachusetts for instance the overwhelmingly Democrat legislature voted in favour of gay marriage and then blocked a ballot initiative putting it to the vote because polls at the time showed that, like California, a majority of MA voters were not in favour.

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

    Jimmy – every one of your comments on this thread (and most elsewhere) are rabidly anti-Christian. Why are you so angry?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. kiwi in america (2,441 comments) says:

    Jimmy
    You assume anyone who opposes gay marriage is Christian. A good majority of the people I know who oppose it have no religion or other religions – Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists I know oppose gay marriage.

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

    krazykiwi (8,172) Says:
    July 27th, 2012 at 12:14 pm

    Jimmy – every one of your comments on this thread (and most elsewhere) are rabidly anti-Christian. Why are you so angry?

    Why are atheists so angry? Let me quote a post someone else wrote but I agree with 100%:

    I will tell you why I, an atheist, am angry.

    I am angry that, in Brazil, in March 2012, an 11-year-old-girl was taken by her mother to a doctor, who performed an abortion. Apparently, she had become pregnant with twins, as a result of sexual abuse at the hands of her stepfather. He had been fucking her since she was six years old. If she had carried the babies to term, both the twins and the girl would have died.

    The Catholic church in Brazil excommunicated the girl, her mother, and the doctor, but not the stepfather. After an outcry, the Vatican in Rome upheld the excommunication. But they still refused to excommunicate the stepfather. His sins weren’t serious enough to warrant excommunication.

    I am angry that, in 2012, a man in Indonesia faces 2.5 years in prison for writing “God does not exist” on Facebook. There are six state-sanctioned religions. Atheism is not an option, it’s a crime.

    I am angry that Jessica Alquist, a 16-year-old girl fought to have a Christian prayer banner taken off the wall of her public school, and had her Facebook, Twitter, and telephone flooded with the most vile and reprehensible filth, generated by so-called Christians. Death threats, saying she should be raped, really, it drops the jaw just to read some of it. For so-called Christians to advocate the immediate murder of all atheists is a little overboard, in my opinion, but certainly not without its examples in history.

    I am angry that polls reveal that voters would not elect an atheist to public office. I am even angrier that at least 15 states have laws on the books that prevent atheists from even running for public office.

    I am angry that the Roman Catholic Church, the only religion with its own goddamned COUNTRY, is so embroiled in money laundering that the scandalous nature of their finances boggles the mind. Nothing new here, folks.

    I am angry That that same Catholic Church has engaged has engaged in a decades, perhaps centuries, long coverup of the systematic sexual abuse of little boys. “Just a few bad apples,” they say. Well fuck you, and fuck your apples. If you’re an apple vendor, it’s up to YOU to find those bad apples and throw them out of the barrel. But don’t bury the bad apples at the bottom of the barrel, and tell me that the barrel looks good when viewed from above.

    I am angry that Islam has conditioned men to believe that women are livestock. There was a Western journalist who was covering the situation in Egypt who was mobbed, stripped and groped by a crowd of Egyptian men. When she went to the police she was treated with indifference, as in “you must have been asking for it”. Fuck you, fuck your Burkhas, fuck your attitude toward women.

    Then again, what can you expect from a religion founded by a man who married a six-year-old? Although, to Mohammed’s credit, he waited until she was nine to actually have sex with her.

    I am angry that there are people who want prayer brought back into the schools….but not any prayer, just Christian prayer. I am angry that they want their Abrahamic creationist mythology taught with the same credence as evolutionary fact. I am angry that they want to perpetuate their methodology of indoctrination of children in a public and secular school system.

    But, I am not completely angry. I am grateful that I can identify as an Atheist in 2012, and not have to worry about being tortured, having my property confiscated, and having my books burned. I am grateful that I will not be shunned, outcast, sent away from family, home, and employment. I am grateful that, even though I am an atheist, I can find someone who will sell me food and clothing, and rent me a warm place to sleep. I am grateful that I can YouTube video recordings of lectures by Dawkins without worry of the Church Police kicking down my door and dragging me away.

    Did you know that George Carlin would have been burnt at the stake as few as 400 years ago?

    Did you know that the Catholic Church finally got around to admitting that Galileo had a point, and that the Earth really does revolve around the Sun? They did, they really admitted it. In 1992.

    I am happy, almost ecstatic, that I am present at the time that humanity finally sheds the shackles of superstition. I am delighted to see the consternation of the power structure of religion quaking in its boots as their membership and their finances dwindle. It fills me with optimism as the youth of our race turn their backs on centuries of oppressive mythology and instead embrace the precepts of knowledge and fact.

    Religion is a small island of superstition, fear, and control, and I smile as the tide of logical thought, knowledge and fact rises to force it under the waves.

    So what happens? A bunch of atheists comment on blogs saying what is wrong with Christianity. Now let us compare that to God’s anger – sending people to hell for eternity for torture? Mmm, sounds like a reasonable response.

    Now let me end with this graphic (click to enlarge) as to why atheists are angry:

    http://i.imgur.com/mpQA0.jpg

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

    Colin Craig – please substantiate.

    In your press release Gay Marriage Bill Unintelligent you make these claims:

    “The situation is that 98% of New Zealanders are heterosexual, and approximately one per cent are the liberal social activists busy with their social engineering, trying to redefine marriage for the rest of us.”

    “The other one per cent, are gays who are not busy trying to meddle with the system, and good on them for respecting what marriage already is, and always has been.”

    Please advise what facts you base these claims on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    Instead of asking questions like the lame little lost loser you always are Pete, why don’t you just post stuff to refute Craig’s claims?

    No balls, that’s why.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    Pete, did you actually ask Colin Craig this, or are you just hoping he will somehow find your website?

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

    graham – I’ve emailed his press secretary as per the Conservative website. If a party makes claims they should have something to base them on if they want to be seen as credible. I presume there is something to back them up, and I think it’s a reasonable thing to ask.

    RB, you don’t seem to understood, media (that aren’t just repeaters) tends to ask questions and ask for substantiation and clarification.

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

    Pete may be unaware of the Conservative Party FB. I could cut and paste but it would be better for Pete to post there.

    I am strongly opposed to homosexual marriage but I think those lobbying against it should make every effort to be accurate.

    I the the 98% is a little high but a low more accurate than the 10% are gay quote from the homosexual lobby.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    “RB, you don’t seem to understood, media (that aren’t just repeaters) tends to ask questions and ask for substantiation and clarification.”

    In what galaxy does this occur?

    Maybe they’ll ask if of someone they perceive as a threat to their cosy little Marxist collective, but look at Barack Obama- no questions no scrutiny no nothing.

    While Sarah Palin had dozens of liberal “reporters” diving through her skip bins.

    Colin Craig will be lied about and attacked enough as it is without gutless little commie shills like you joining in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. Lucia Maria (2,423 comments) says:

    It’s definitely not 10% gay. The stats for NZ are pretty low, from memory between 1.5% and 2.5%. Can’t remember exactly.

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

    Colin Craig will be lied about and attacked enough

    That’s why it’s important, as Chuck says, for him to be accurate and to be able to substantiate any claims.

    Otherwise he won’t be taken seriously – and worse, he’ll discredit that side of the argument.

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

    Jimmy – You don’t need to look far to find examples of man’s inhumanity towards man. Wars, crusades, persecutions, brutal dictatorships. Some of this inhumanity is attributed to religious dogma, some to the purist of ideological purity, or to garden-variety selfishness. But at the end of the day it’s simply that most humans, to varying degrees, are greedy for resources and power, and dishonest about their underlying motives.

    When I read posting like your 12:45 list of shame, I get the feeling that atheists believe that all that’s bad in the world is attributable to religious people, where all that’s good can be attributed to those who shun religion. That’s the very type of bigoted narrow-mindedness that you’re so fast to accuse Christians of.

    The truth is this: Humans are imperfect. I know I am, because despite choosing to live my life as a Christian, focused on the life and value of Jesus Christ as my model, I fall short time and time again.

    What standard to aspire to live to Jimmy? Do you always hit that mark? If you don’t, then atheism isn’t the answer. If you do then you’re not being honest.

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

    What standard to aspire to live to Jimmy? Do you always hit that mark? If you don’t, then atheism isn’t the answer. If you do then you’re not being honest.

    Firstly, that makes no sense. I can just as easily say:

    What standard to aspire to live to krazykiwi? Do you always hit that mark? If you don’t, then Christianity isn’t the answer. If you do then you’re not being honest.

    Secondly, what standard? Not to discriminate against gay people. I hit that mark. If I do not then that is my problem. But Christians do not hit that mark – in fact, they are against hitting that mark.

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

    polemic (314) Says:
    July 27th, 2012 at 10:07 am

    Thankyou RRM

    So if you need a man and a woman to produce a child then with that go’s responsibility to care for that child (yes I know there are a number of irresponsible parents out there)

    So since the beginning of time that relationship has been formalised and solemnised and the committment that goes with it is the structure of the family- that structure has brought order to society.(yes there is broken families around but the vast majority all around the world remain together)

    If you want to have some other relationship then why do you want it called the same name as something quite different.

    Polemic –

    So what about if a man wants to marry a woman who already has a child from some other encounter? As you say the responsibility for raising the child falls on him too.

    They are not the same as the ideal family (biological parents plus children) you are talking about either. So should the state also disallow them marriage?

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

    Here’s the response from the Conservative Party, some claims based on well known research (but possibly at odds with other numbers?) and an estimate:

    The total figures (i.e. 98% / 2%) come from the University of Otago research project on Sexual Orientation. As far as we are aware this is the most detailed study on the subject as it was longitudinal and had 13,000 participants.

    The study found that 0.8% (i.e. less than 1%) identify themselves as homosexual, 0.6% as bisexual, and 0.3% as something else other than heterosexual (such as transvestites). This adds up to 1.7% in total.

    Feedback directly to us, and within the GLBT community is divided on the issue of marriage. While some in the community support the proposed bill, others are not in favour, either because they respect that the word marriage is already defined, and has significance for others, or because they value their homosexuality as a point of difference, and do not wish to conform to society’s norms.

    There is no actual measure of exactly what this split is, which is why Colin chose to use the word “approximately” 1%.

    From the Conservative Party press secretary.

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

    Rufus:You are trying to do the exact same thing here – trying to prove homosexual marriage was the norm, celebrated for being as wonderful and useful to society as marriage.

    No, I’m not. Comprehension does not appear to be your forte. You claimed that marriage had always been between a man and a woman. I pointed out that this wasn’t so and that your claim was wrong. In order to prove your claim wrong it is not necessary for me to show that gay marriage not only occurred but that it widespread, or that it was widely accepted, I only need to show that it occurred and that some people accepted it. This is basic logic. If you claim that X has always been true, then for me to show that this claim is false I merely need to show a counterexample, not there were lots of counterexamples.

    You can’t use it as evidence for your claim that homo marriage has always been accepted as normal behaviour.

    I haven’t made that claim. Learn to read.

    The fact Tacitus, Martial et al wrote and decried the practice suggests that it wasn’t accepted as normal in Roman society.

    It does nothing of the sort. It tells us only that the writers in question decried the practice. You cannot deduce anything about what others believed – that they shared their dislike, or that they didn’t – from their writings.

    Please prove to me, with evidence, that homosexual marriage, throughout history, was accepted as normal, on par with heterosexual marriage.

    I have made no such claim. Learn to read.

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

    At the 2006 Census, there were a recorded 12,300 people living in a same-sex couple in New Zealand – 5,300 male and 7,000 female.

    http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/marriages-civil-unions-and-divorces/same-sex-couples-in-nz.aspx

    Otherwise statistic are variable due to definitions and ways of gathering data.

    Since most of the surveys mentioned are based on door to door or telephone based statistics, the numbers and percentages mentioned are strongly likely to be underreported since most LGBT people still live in fear of being outed by their local authorities and mostly their family members, therefore choose to hide their real sexual identity.

    Australia:
    For women 97.7% identified as heterosexual, 0.8% as lesbian and 1.4% as bisexual.

    Nevertheless, 18.6% of men and 15.1% of women reported either feelings of attraction to the same gender or some sexual experience with the same gender.

    Half the men and two thirds of the women who had same-sex sexual experience regarded themselves as heterosexual rather than homosexual.

    Sex in Australia: The Australian study of health and relationships, Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society. (Published as the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health vol 27 no 2.)

    Norway
    1988 – In a random survey of 6,300 Norwegians, 3.5% of the men and 3% of the women reported that they had a homosexual experience sometime in their life.
    2003 – According to Durex Global Sex Survey for 2003, 12% of Norwegian respondents have had homosexual sex.

    Despite all the statistical uncertainty, does it matter whether 0.1% or 10% of people are affected directly?

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

    KIA:My point is that the numbers wanting gay marriage is a small subset of a small subset. Why upend a centuries old institution to cater for what may end up being less than 2,000 people in NZ.

    We have statutes on the books that have probably never been used, or only used a handful of times. You are correct that only a small number of people will be affected if such legislation isn’t passed but that only relates to the question of whether it should have priority over other issues, not whether is it right or not in the first place.

    but gays cannot ask people to accept the normality of their lifestyle choice.

    I’m not sure if this is poor phrasing or your actual belief. If you actually think their lifestyle is a choice then I suggest you ask your gay friends if they think it was a choice.

    A recent study published in Social Science Research http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610 found:

    The study has already been debunked. It turns out that the study was effectively comparing stable households to unstable households.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    “It’s definitely not 10% gay.”

    Research conducted in 1994 by Wellings, Field, Johnson & Wadsworth called “Sexual Behaviour in Britain” is considered to be one of the most comprehensive studies ever undertaken on this subject. They interviewed a 20000 person sample of the demographic and found that core homosexual orientation was limited to 0.6% in men and a staggeringly low 0.1% in women. Ninety percent of those claiming to be solely homosexual in orientation are actually just uninhibited bisexuals when push comes to shove . . . and bisexuality is a choice – by definition at least.

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

    The 10% claim was made up in the seventies, based on a misunderstanding of Kinsey’s work. Prevalence is generally taken to be around 1% or 2%.

    and bisexuality is a choice – by definition at least.

    Really? How so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. Lucia Maria (2,423 comments) says:

    Chiz,

    The link you gave also says that Gay parents may be the best parents. Especially two men as they can’t breastfeed or get pregnant, so there’s no “asymmetry built into the relationship”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. kiwi in america (2,441 comments) says:

    chiz
    My point was that the pressure to have same sex marriage (on top of and in addition to Civil Unions) is coming from a tiny vocal number of activists. Most gays neither want nor are even in a stable long enough relationship to contempate gay marriage. Why should the whole definition of marriage be changed from its centuries old accepted definition for the sake of this tiny noisy group.

    It would’ve been better to say orientation than lifestyle choice agreed. My point was that people are entitled to their orientation just don’t expect universal acceptance of that orientation no matter what the State legislates. That is an entirely separate issue to discrimination which very much ought to be legislated against.

    The study actually compared three groups – children of gay couples, children of single parents (often on the receiving end of instability) and the children of married couples – a very valid comparison with a graduated scale of outcomes. That pro gay groups would deride the study was as predictable as the sun rising. Doesn’t stop them using their own advocacy studies where only the gay couples themselves are interviewed to tout the findings that children from gay partnerships are completely the same. Gay advocacy groups trot out studies that show 10% of the population is gay when various reputable, unbiased large sample studies (some mentioned in this thread) debunk that figure.

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

    I’m not sure what your point is Lucia.

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

    Research finds that gay and lesbian couples with children and strong religious beliefs are more likely than their peers to hold commitment ceremonies.

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

    A telling paragraph from the summary of the study that KIA linked to (emphasis mine):

    Do children need a married mother and father to turn out well as adults? No, if we observe the many anecdotal accounts with which all Americans are familiar. Moreover, there are many cases in the NFSS where respondents have proven resilient and prevailed as adults in spite of numerous transitions, be they death, divorce, additional or diverse romantic partners, or remarriage.

    But the NFSS also clearly reveals that children appear most apt to succeed well as adults—on multiple counts and across a variety of domains—when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day.

    Insofar as the share of intact, biological mother/father families continues to shrink in the United States, as it has, this portends growing challenges within families, but also heightened dependence on public health organizations, federal and state public assistance, psychotherapeutic resources, substance use programs, and the criminal justice system.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  260. grumpy (260 comments) says:

    Chiz talks crap.

    Adopted children of homosexuals are more likely to indulge in drugs, commit suicide, have abortions etc. As well as that male homosexuals are 6 times more likely to be pedophiles.

    This Homosexual lobby needs to stop setting up their own “studies” and stop preaching crap.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. Lucia Maria (2,423 comments) says:

    Chiz,

    My point was that the site you linked to had it’s rainbow coloured glasses on. It certainly didn’t “debunk” the study.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  262. grumpy (260 comments) says:

    May as well chuck this one in to even things up

    http://www.equip.org/PDF/JAH050.pdf

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

    Peter Davis in his book, “Intimate Details & Vital Statistics – AIDS, SEXUALITY AND THE SOCIAL ORDER IN NEW ZEALAND” slightly higher figure. I would hate to think what his methodology is.

    Colin Craig will be on with Susan Wood just after 5 on NewstalkZB.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  264. Jess.S (1 comment) says:

    Marriage originated from Christianity and God says homosexuality is a sin. How the hell can 2 gays get married when it’s against Christian beliefs?? What the hell is wrong with this screwed up country? Gays have the Civil Union is that not good enough for them?? If this bill gets passed, well we better change the national anthem then and scrap the part “God Defend NZ”.

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