Dom Post on same sex marriage

August 6th, 2012 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

The Dom Post editorial:

Marriage should be the union between two people. Whether they are both men or both women should be no business of the state. …

There is also no reasonable explanation as to why gay weddings would undermine the sanctity of marriage. Each marriage is an individual union between two people. It stretches credulity to suggest that heterosexual couples will suddenly decide not to tie the knot, or to get divorced, just because gay couples have the right to marry.

Although gay couples can enjoy many of the benefits of marriage through civil unions, the fact remains that denying them the right to marry purely because of their sexuality relegates them to second-class citizens.

The law as it stands belongs to a society that disappeared long ago. It is discriminatory and it is time it was changed.

A good editorial. In 15 years time, people will look back with surprise that this issue was even controversial.

Tags: , ,

103 Responses to “Dom Post on same sex marriage”

  1. hmmokrightitis (1,458 comments) says:

    Cue the world is ending posts in 3,2,1…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. tom hunter (4,004 comments) says:

    true hmmokrightitis (and should it not be homorightikis?), but the blog owner is clearly very, very, very keen to continue banging this drum also.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    The debate pushes up traffic, Tom, which presumably translates into ad clicks ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. kowtow (6,690 comments) says:

    Rubbish.

    Rights,denial,equality,discrimination,relegates,second class etc etc yeah right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Kovac (28 comments) says:

    I think that the point being made that gay marriage will not harm the marriages of heterosexual couples is somewhat of a straw man argument. I don’t think that this is what is actually being argued by the opposition at all.

    It’s not the marriages will suddenly fall apart heterosexual couples will suddenly decide not to tie the knot, the argument is over the institution of marriage and how it is defined. It seems to me that the only reason people reframe this argument is because it makes it easier to ridicule the position once it has been reframed in this way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. La Grand Fromage (145 comments) says:

    Whilst I couldn’t care less about gays getting married I get very uncomfortable with the “society today thinks its perfectly ok so if you don’t you’re a freak” bullying argument. Many here would have been on the other end of that one around climate change.

    The truth is that there are alot of people that don’t think it is right that gays marry and it is wrong to victimise them as mongs because of that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    It’s not the marriages will suddenly fall apart heterosexual couples will suddenly decide not to tie the knot, the argument is over the institution of marriage and how it is defined. It seems to me that the only reason people reframe this argument is because it makes it easier to ridicule the position once it has been reframed in this way.

    Fair enough in some cases, but there are plenty of people talking about “them” taking “our” tradition, and talk about “defending marriage”, etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    The truth is that there are alot of people that don’t think it is right that gays marry and it is wrong to victimise them as mongs because of that.

    I agree. And for the people who don’t think it’s right that gays marry, I suggest that they don’t marry any gays.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. James Stephenson (1,885 comments) says:

    the fact remains that denying them the right to marry purely because of their sexuality relegates them to second-class citizens.

    It does? What extra benefits do I get as a first class citizen? I think I must have missed the special “married people only” lanes on the motorway, or is that what that little picture with the two people in the car means?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. PhilBest (5,112 comments) says:

    There are underlying agendas here that seek occasion against Christians. Notice how non-christian religious beliefs are meant to be granted utmost tolerance and respect no matter how absurd they are. And notice how the PC neo-Marxists in Europe are always silent about Muslims attitudes to gays and women, and “movements” re “human rights” all over the western world are silent about these things as they stand in Muslim nations.

    Apparently “progress” is inevitable when it comes to our own culture, but “tolerance” means that all other cultures are entitled to remain set in stone. Why does moral and cultural relativism not extend to Victorian Christian morality being just as valid a culture as any other one?

    There are plenty of human acts about which anyone can freely express the opinion, that these acts are “disgusting” (acts involving human snot or excrement or urine, for example). But buggery is one act that having an opinion about, renders a person a “bigot”. So what if the opinion is based on a person’s religious faith? Does that not make it all the more important to “tolerate” that person’s opinion, if tolerance and multiculturalism is to be at all consistent?

    A case can easily be made that “marriage” and “fatherhood” and “motherhood” is an objective and dispassionate matter of biology. Is it because of bigotry that a man cannot call himself “mother” and a woman cannot call herself “father”? This is just a question of language and biology. “Marriage” is not just a concept associated with one or two religions. We simply don’t have another term to mean “humans of opposite sexes entering into a contract to procreate children together in a proven stable environment for those children”.

    I am not aware of Plato or Aristotle or Seneca or Spinoza or Voltaire or Neitsche or Hegel or any philosophies ever suggesting that a redefinition of “marriage” would be “progress”. No cultures in which buggery was or is tolerated, have ever suggested elevating Catamites to the level of spouses.

    This is Orwellian nonsense and nothing more than a “cause” being constructed by the ongoing “Long March Through the Institutions”, to persecute Christians.

    “……..The fundamental error made by some supporters of conjugal marriage was and is, I believe, to imagine that a grand bargain could be struck with their opponents: “We will accept the legal redefinition of marriage; you will respect our right to act on our consciences without penalty, discrimination, or civil disabilities of any type. Same-sex partners will get marriage licenses, but no one will be forced for any reason to recognize those marriages or suffer discrimination or disabilities for declining to recognize them.” There was never any hope of such a bargain being accepted. Perhaps parts of such a bargain would be accepted by liberal forces temporarily for strategic or tactical reasons, as part of the political project of getting marriage redefined; but guarantees of religious liberty and non-discrimination for people who cannot in conscience accept same-sex marriage could then be eroded and eventually removed. After all, “full equality” requires that no quarter be given to the “bigots” who want to engage in “discrimination” (people with a “separate but equal” mindset) in the name of their retrograde religious beliefs……….”

    From “Marriage, Religious Liberty, and the “Grand Bargain”
    by Robert P. George
    July 19, 2012

    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/07/5884

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. wreck1080 (3,522 comments) says:

    I’m not against gay marriage, I don’t really care whether it happens or not.

    But, there will be more controversy over the next step in the gay movements ‘plan’…. that is gay adoption. Homosexuals likely desire a family as much as heterosexuals, and the right to marriage is a necessary stepping stone for them to achieve eligibility to adopt.

    Through out all this debate I have noticed a new ‘hate’ movement. This is by heterosexual people who appear to ‘hate’ those opposed to gay marriage. There are some real nasty units out there who despise those who may have any objection to gay marriage.

    Homosexuals have already won the major battle for acceptance. People should get some objectivity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,786 comments) says:

    Chick-fil-A anyone?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Apparently “progress” is inevitable when it comes to our own culture, but “tolerance” means that all other cultures are entitled to remain set in stone. Why does moral and cultural relativism not extend to Victorian Christian morality being just as valid a culture as any other one?

    They do, PhilBest. It is.

    Removing a situation where Christian values are imposed on non-Christians is simply putting Christians that much closer to being on equal footing with…

    - Buddhists, who believe that eating meat is wrong, but have to live in a country where non-Buddhists are allowed to.
    - Judaists, who believe that eating pork is wrong, but have to live in a country where non-Jews are allowed to.
    - Muslims, who believe that depicting God in paintings is wrong, but have to live in a country where non-Muslims are allowed to.
    - Christians, who believe that same-sex marriage is wrong, but have to live in a country where non-Christians are allowed to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    @The Big Cheese
    “society today thinks its perfectly ok so if you don’t you’re a freak” bullying argument. Many here would have been on the other end of that one around climate change.

    You are confusing to different things
    Ethics
    Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behaviour

    Science
    Science (from Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

    Can you see the difference

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Kovac (28 comments) says:

    “There are underlying agendas here that seek occasion against Christians. Notice how non-christian religious beliefs are meant to be granted utmost tolerance and respect”

    Sounds like a persecution complex to me. Perhaps Christians just pay a greater degree of attention towards the criticism from “PC neo-Marxists” (Which sounds like wishy washy labeling to me) but there is plenty of criticism available for the muslims as well.

    Perhaps it’s just not being heard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. James Stephenson (1,885 comments) says:

    But, there will be more controversy over the next step in the gay movements ‘plan’…. that is gay adoption. Homosexuals likely desire a family as much as heterosexuals, and the right to marriage is a necessary stepping stone for them to achieve eligibility to adopt.

    That’s where you’re wrong, wreck. The ability to adopt comes with the “married” tag, no further debate needed. This whole debate is a combination of that issue slid in under the radar without the discussion it deserves, and our political “elites” competing to see who can display their badge of right-on-ness most prominently.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. edhunter (434 comments) says:

    To Quote the Simpsons:
    Lisa: Dad, as you know, we’ve been swimming. And we’ve developed a taste for it. We both agree that getting our own pool is the only way to go. Now before you respond, you must understand that your refusal would result in months and months of, “Can we have a pool, Dad? Can we have a pool, Dad? Can we have a pool, Dad? Can we have a pool, Dad?”
    Homer: I understand. Let us celebrate our new arrangement by the adding of chocolate to milk.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. wreck1080 (3,522 comments) says:

    So, you’re saying if gays can marry then by default they can adopt?

    I didn’t realise that. If that is the case, we should be debating gay adoptions, not gay marriage.

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

    wreck1080 (2,320) says : “But, there will be more controversy over the next step in the gay movements ‘plan’…. that is gay adoption. Homosexuals likely desire a family as much as heterosexuals, and the right to marriage is a necessary stepping stone for them to achieve eligibility to adopt.”

    Gay couples adopting is not “the next step in the gay movements (sic) ‘plan’. Gay people can already adopt under NZ law but only as individuals not as a couple. So if a gay couple wants adopts at present only one person is legally recognised as the parent. The Marriage Amendment Bill would have the effect of eliminating this silly situation.

    And btw there are thousands of NZ kids growing up in gay parented families. The law change isn’t causing this. The law change will simply give social recognition to the children of these families, and in the case of adopted children, full legal recognition of who their parents are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Andrei (2,429 comments) says:

    I didn’t realise that.

    You are not supposed to.

    We are not really debating anything, we are being told by our masters we favour this abomination and that anyone who says otherwise is just an antediluvian bigot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    Through out all this debate I have noticed a new ‘hate’ movement. This is by heterosexual people who appear to ‘hate’ those opposed to gay marriage. There are some real nasty units out there who despise those who may have any objection to gay marriage.

    You’re very close to understanding how gay couples who want to get married feel. Keep it up! We may yet develop some genuine understanding and empathy here…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Scott (1,614 comments) says:

    Thanks to Phil Best for some great comments.

    The Dominion Post editorial was quite interesting in that it laid bare one assumption – “New Zealand is a secular state and though all religious beliefs must be respected, nobody has the right to impose theirs on those who hold different views.”

    First of all the idea that New Zealand is a secular state – I remember Helen Clark said that. There appears to be a lot of presumption there. The main presumption is that secularism is the de facto religious position and ruling worldview of the New Zealand nation. We should be secular and proceed as if God does not exist. People are free to be religious and worship God however they may choose, but that is purely a private affair. In no way should it be taken seriously in the public square and particularly with regard to the framing of our laws and statutes.

    There is a lot of presumption there. When was it decided that New Zealand was a secular state? Who decided that?

    Secondly the imposition of secularism, which is what this is, is itself the imposing of a worldview on everybody else. To say that we should proceed without reference to God or any higher power, is in itself imposing a view.

    But I think at the heart of the matter, this is the central question. The Liberal secular elite who run this country and the media are determined to push this same-sex marriage legislation through. They appear to want to free themselves from stultifying Christian morals and ethics and remake New Zealand into something different entirely from its Christian heritage.

    The fundamental redefinition of marriage from man and woman, to include man and man and woman and woman, is itself imposing a secular worldview on everybody else. I wonder when the majority of New Zealanders will tire of our liberal elite and their consistent need to redefine morality to suit their own preferences?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. OTGO (457 comments) says:

    So I’m at a function last week and someone asks me if I’m married. I reply, “yes”. Then they ask, “Gay or straight?” and I proudly answer, “straight”. The social norms are a changing I tell ya…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    wreck, I believe gay adoption is part of the agenda, together with continued re-definition of marriage to include polygamy, polyandry and marriage to non-humans (animals, inanimate objects etc).
     
    On the subject of adoption we now routinely abort so many children, that those lucky enough to be born and offered for adoption deserve nothing best than the best protection that a caring society can provide. I support the abolition of all rights of adoption, including by heterosexual couples, and the creation of an absolute right for a child to be adopted into a family that, relative to all other options at that time, statistically affords it the optimum chance of leading a full and happy life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Pete George (21,804 comments) says:

    @PhilBest

    Notice how non-christian religious beliefs are meant to be granted utmost tolerance and respect no matter how absurd they are.

    No, I don’t notice that.

    This is Orwellian nonsense and nothing more than a “cause” being constructed by the ongoing “Long March Through the Institutions”, to persecute Christians.

    Notice how some Christians are increasingly playing the victimhood card.

    There needn’t be any victims on this issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    The fundamental redefinition of marriage from man and woman, to include man and man and woman and woman, is itself imposing a secular worldview on everybody else.

    No, it’s not. You’re free to not marry any other men, Scott. The only ill effect this will have on you is having to stomach living in a country where not everyone lives the way you think they should. We all have to swallow that pill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    krazykiwi,

    I support the abolition of all rights of adoption, including by heterosexual couples, and the creation of an absolute right for a child to be adopted into a family that, relative to all other options at that time, statistically affords it the optimum chance of leading a full and happy life.

    Wouldn’t this mean that a child should be adopted to a white family before a Maori family based on indicators such as crime rates?

    OTOH, have you considered that adopting a child according to statistics is a stupid idea when what should be considered are the specific circumstances of the family looking to adopt?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Scott (1,614 comments) says:

    Yes Ryan it is. Marriage is about a man and a woman getting married. It has always been that way. Now we are going to fundamentally change it. To make it between a man and a man and a woman and a woman, in addition to its previous definition. That is a fundamental change.

    However if you think it is only a small thing, let’s forget the whole thing and leave things as they are shall we?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Yes Ryan it is. Marriage is about a man and a woman getting married.

    No, it’s not. That’s a religious belief.

    It has always been that way.

    No, it hasn’t. That’s a religious belief.

    Now we are going to fundamentally change it.

    No, we’re not. That’s a religious belief.

    To make it between a man and a man and a woman and a woman, in addition to its previous definition. That is a fundamental change.

    No, it’s not. That’s a religious belief.

    However if you think it is only a small thing, let’s forget the whole thing and leave things as they are shall we?

    It’s not a small thing. It’s the beliefs of one religion being imposed via the state on everyone regardless of their religion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Andrei (2,429 comments) says:

    FFS Pete George gay “marriage” is a blasphemy.

    And the so called elites know this which is why it is so attractive to them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    > It has always been that way

    You must have been upset when slavery was abolished. :)

    And it hasn’t always been that way. For a long time, mixed marraiges weren’t allowed. But now they are. For a long time women weren’t permitted to vote. But now they are. For a long time, women could compete in only a few events at the Olympics. But now they compete in the same events men compete in.

    http://www.topendsports.com/events/summer/women.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    But surely they are all going to HELL, Andrei, why do you care? :twisted:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. alloytoo (337 comments) says:

    @scott

    Until you or anyone provides some evidence as to why your bronze age god is better (or more real) than any other bronze age (or indeed modern) god, it’s probably prudent to make decisions as if none of them exist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. alloytoo (337 comments) says:

    Blasphemy is the ultimate victimless crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    Scott,

    Secondly the imposition of secularism, which is what this is, is itself the imposing of a worldview on everybody else. To say that we should proceed without reference to God or any higher power, is in itself imposing a view.

    If the government doesn’t endorse your make-believe you are somehow being imposed upon? Clearly you bumped your head as a child.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Andrei (2,429 comments) says:

    If the government doesn’t endorse your make-believe you are somehow being imposed upon?

    Isn’t this a case of the Government imposing its very own make believe upon us?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    Andrei,

    No it isn’t. To impose on you requires something of you. Allowing gays to marry requires nothing of you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    Isn’t this a case of the Government imposing its very own make believe upon us?

    What is the government imposing on you? You are free to not get a gay marriage if you don’t want one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Colville (1,771 comments) says:

    At least the 35 comments above are not polluting the GD thread today :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    At least the 35 comments above are not polluting the GD thread today :-)

    Maybe DPF needs to start a daily “Gay Debate” thread to keep General clear…?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. XavierG (69 comments) says:

    If you’re a red blooded heterosexual male, and don’t like the idea of two men getting married, don’t marry a man. If you’re a good God fearing Christian and you think that gays are going to hell, and two men or two women getting married damns them to an eternity of hell fire, well, let them find out in their own time. The only thing that will fundamentally undermine your marriage is if you dip your wick where it shouldn’t go, or if you beat on your wife. Avoid those things, and your marriage will be right as rain, even if Adam and Steve decide to get married. Other than that, suck it up, move on and accept that you live in a secular democracy. If you don’t like it, move to Iran or Saudi Arabia, or Arizona.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. ross69 (3,637 comments) says:

    > Allowing gays to marry requires nothing of you.

    Wrong, it requires tolerance. For some, that’s a big ask.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    Wouldn’t this mean that a child should be adopted to a white family before a Maori family based on indicators such as crime rates?

    I might mean lots of things. Do you agree that he right of a child to experience an optimum environment in which to to be raised trumps the right of any couple to adopt that child?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    If we’re going to prevent non-Christian gay Kiwis from marrying because the Christian God doesn’t like it, we might as well prevent non-Buddhist Kiwis from eating meat because it’s bad karma, prevent non-Muslim Kiwis from painting pictures of God because Allah doesn’t like it, and prevent non-Jews from eating pork because G-d doesn’t like it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Sofia (780 comments) says:

    Blasphemy is the ultimate victimless crime. Not in some places – try Holland, or [more often] Iran

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Scott (1,614 comments) says:

    The point I was making people is in response to the Dominion Post editor who believes that it is wrong to impose your view on everyone else. Particularly on religious people to impose their view on everyone else. Now my point is that a de facto assumption of secularism, is itself imposing a worldview on those who are not secular.

    Now you may argue that secularism is correct and all religion is rubbish. However the point about imposing a worldview still remains. Secularism is being imposed by secular people on all New Zealanders, whatever their religious persuasion.

    The idea that marriage is about a man and a woman was until recently pretty universally shared I would have thought? It was a religious belief that marriage should be about a man and a woman, certainly. But it also reflected the actual practice of marriage since time immemorial. So to say that it is only a religious belief is not correct. It reflects a shared understanding which we have had for century upon century.

    Now a fundamental change to marriage may not affect my marriage personally. But it does affect marriage for future generations. What we are saying now is that a child growing up can aspire to get married, either a man or a woman depending on his own preferences. So homosexual sex and marriage is just as morally good and right as traditional marriage between a man and a woman. That’s the change. That homosexuality should be elevated to the level of marriage.

    And somehow that the institution of marriage will be unaffected? Of course it will be affected. Homosexual activists are quite clear about that. They want it to be affected. For at least some homosexual activists the destruction of marriage in its present form is to be welcomed. Bill Muehlenberg has an excellent article about this –
    http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2012/08/01/when-the-activists-spill-the-beans/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    The idea that marriage is about a man and a woman was until recently pretty universally shared I would have thought? It was a religious belief that marriage should be about a man and a woman, certainly. But it also reflected the actual practice of marriage since time immemorial. So to say that it is only a religious belief is not correct. It reflects a shared understanding which we have had for century upon century.

    Scott,

    I agree that the religious belief reflected cultural practices, but I disagree that neither changed over those years. Marriage has been polygamous at times, temporary at times, restricted by race or caste at times, etc. It changes. And the most recent change, over the last few centuries, is that marriage is now about romantic love more than it is about property or procreation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Sofia (780 comments) says:

    The end argument is ‘Should a gay couple be allowed to adopt children’ but because a single gay person may [as I understand, but could be wrong] adopt at the moment, that question is probably academic.

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

    Christians who have centuries to impose their own will upon others now whining that they can no longer impose their will upon others and are somehow victims………well suck it up fairy fanatics….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. PhilBest (5,112 comments) says:

    Pete George (14,094) Says:
    August 6th, 2012 at 3:19 pm

    @PhilBest

    Notice how non-christian religious beliefs are meant to be granted utmost tolerance and respect no matter how absurd they are.

    “No, I don’t notice that.”

    Taniwha in the way of motorways? The “Mauri” “life force” meaning we must respect trees and forests?

    BTW the enviro Taleban who are nearly NZ’s modern high priesthood, LOVE this stuff. And they hate humanity, too, so “copulation without procreation” is secular sainthood in the modern perverted values system. Greens and gays are a natural political alliance.

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

    [One Year Later]…gays picket St Joseph’s church for not consenting to gay-marriages. Vicar receives hate-mail. Betcha!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Scott (1,614 comments) says:

    “Christians who have centuries to impose their own will upon others now whining that they can no longer impose their will upon others and are somehow victims………well suck it up fairy fanatics….”

    No,once again the argument being made in the editorial is that we should not impose our view on anybody else. This argument is generally used against religious views being imposed on others.

    However my point is that the assumption of secularism is not a neutral position. It is itself imposing a world view and a position on religion on everyone. Namely that consideration of God and his ways should have no sway in our laws and statutes. This is the imposition of secularism. Now you might agree with that imposition. But an imposition it remains.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    krazykiwi (8,262) Says:
    August 6th, 2012 at 3:58 pm

    Wouldn’t this mean that a child should be adopted to a white family before a Maori family based on indicators such as crime rates?

    I might mean lots of things. Do you agree that he right of a child to experience an optimum environment in which to to be raised trumps the right of any couple to adopt that child?

    No I don’t. The child has a right to an acceptable environment. No child has a right to an “optimum environment”. If that were the case then we shouldn’t allow mystics to pollute their minds with religious dogma.

    While ideally a child has the right to have their best interests cared for, in practice this simply means that parents must meet minimum standards as set by society for raising children: e.g. you can’t bash them, you can’t rape them, you can’t keep them out of school etc.

    But this is all they are entitled to. They are not entitled to an “optimum”. If they were then every child would attend a top school.

    But more importantly, evaluating statistics does not allow kids to receive an “optimum” upbringing. Indeed relying on statistics is a negation of one’s responsibility to ensure that parents meet standards of acceptability. It would be a decision based on prejudice rather than pertinent facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    Scott,

    However my point is that the assumption of secularism is not a neutral position. It is itself imposing a world view and a position on religion on everyone. Namely that consideration of God and his ways should have no sway in our laws and statutes. This is the imposition of secularism. Now you might agree with that imposition. But an imposition it remains.

    Yes your fairy tales should have no sway in our laws and statutes because to do so would be to impose your make-believe nonsense on others. To stop you from imposing yourself on others does not constitute an imposition upon you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. alloytoo (337 comments) says:

    @ Scott

    Well Scott it seems to me that this isn’t your fight, but god’s. Send him over to debate the issue.

    Of course some more modern god’s endorse gay marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Scott (1,614 comments) says:

    “Yes your fairy tales should have no sway in our laws and statutes because to do so would be to impose your make-believe nonsense on others. To stop you from imposing yourself on others does not constitute an imposition upon you.”

    No Weihana, I would suggest that you are of the view that religion is bad and should have no place in the public square. That is the secularist view and probably your view? Now laws based on that assumption are generally an imposition on people of faith.
    Of course they are.

    As you yourself say they are just fairy tales. So you would agree that religious views have no value and should not be part of any legislation? That is the imposition of secularism. Which is what the liberal secular elite want. Which is my point really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Chthoniid (1,966 comments) says:

    Hmm, no, secularism isn’t being imposed. You can take any religious or non-religious view you like. You can tell your kids any stories you want to. You can meet with people who share your values and beliefs on any holy day or occasion you like.

    All secularism entails is the scrupulous separation of the state from religion. You shouldn’t have any laws or grant privileges that are intended to give state-sanction to religious activities. That’s something that people of both faith and non-faith positions have backed in NZ. Secularism takes no position on the harm or benefit of religion- only that it is something that should occur in the private-sphere of citizen’s lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Pete George (21,804 comments) says:

    Scott @ 4.07 pm: Secularism is being imposed by secular people on all New Zealanders

    What sort of secularism exactly? And how is it being imposed? Who are the ‘secular people’?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. mavxp (490 comments) says:

    Scott, you are sadly so very wrong.

    1) The state has no right to dictate what is the national religion. Laws should not favour one religion over another. Don’t like this – then move to Saudi Arabia or Iran where you can live under a theocracy. Then try and open a church and practice Christianity and see how that works out for you. Or go back to Catholic Spain during the Inquisition and try printing and reading the Bible in your own language and see how that works out for you. The early Roman Empire also didn’t like that Christians would not engage in the Emperor cult and fed them to the lions, crucified them etc. Separation of Church and State is fundamental to a civil liberal democratic society. All the disparate christian sects would be at each others throats without it – don’t believe me? Then read your history.

    2) The state does not determine the morality of same-sex unions within the (orthodox) Christian religion, Islam, or any other religious community, cult or squash club. It merely provides legal recognition for shared possessions in case of death, breakup, etc.

    3) You are trying to fight an intra-christian theological debate about the legitimacy of same-sex unions in the public, secular space. Sorry, but realise that the rules for Christians are rules for members-only, not rules for the rest of society that is until they freely join your club. You can still decide not to consider same-sex unions as licit within your church community, that’s entirely up to you. You have the freedom to believe what you want to believe and practice your religion unmolestered in this country. Enjoy it – it’s called living in a secular state.

    Having said all that I think the way this bill has been drafted is a waste of precious time of our government machinery. As someone else has already said on a previous thread – just repeal the marriage act so every couple gets a “Civil Union” (deliciously bureaucratic term that – recognising how disinterested the state is in the reasons for the union- love, reproduction, company, business partnership, whatever!). Leave the term “marriage” without a legal definition and open to the public to do as they want with it. That would get my vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Sofia (780 comments) says:

    Obama made his Election year comment
    Media ask Key his opinion
    Labour member puts up bill which is drawn.
    So really, who wants it for whom?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    Scott (1,005) Says:
    August 6th, 2012 at 4:38 pm

    No Weihana, I would suggest that you are of the view that religion is bad

    Philosophically untenable, but each to their own. I haven’t said it is “bad”.

    and should have no place in the public square.

    I haven’t said that either. Public spaces are for shared public use and so we all must be accommodating. If you want to preach in public then go right ahead. But do not have the government impose it on others for you.

    That is the secularist view and probably your view? Now laws based on that assumption are generally an imposition on people of faith.
    Of course they are.

    You are mistaken. You are not imposed upon at all, you are just expected not to have the government endorse your religion. That does not constitute an imposition upon you, that is simply requiring you not to impose your religion on others.

    As you yourself say they are just fairy tales. So you would agree that religious views have no value and should not be part of any legislation? That is the imposition of secularism. Which is what the liberal secular elite want. Which is my point really.

    Religion has value. It gives atheists something to complain about and makes the world a fucked up but interesting place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Scott (1,614 comments) says:

    “Secularism takes no position on the harm or benefit of religion- only that it is something that should occur in the private-sphere of citizen’s lives.”

    Thanks for your comments Chthoniid. However “it is something that should occur in the private-sphere of citizen’s lives”- that is itself an imposition of a religious position. Like in some societies religion is not private. It does inform law. For example in NZ in the past our laws have been shaped by Christian thinking. The Labour Govt. welfare reforms of the 1930′s were seen as “applied Christianity” by the Labour party leadership.

    However the de facto assumption of secularism is a position on religion. To say NZ is a secular state is imposing a world view on those who are not secular. To say our laws must be based purely on secular reasoning is imposing a view on those of us who are not secular. I just think that logically follows.

    Every law has a world view behind it. To base our laws on the assumption of secularism is no more neutral than basing our laws on the 10 commandments or the sermon on the mount or the Koran for that matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. BigFish (131 comments) says:

    @ PhilBest – living in a secular state means you can follow your religion freely and without discrimination. It also means your religion is unable to impose rules or beliefs on those who choose not to follow your religion.
    You have the freedom to follow your own beliefs, but not the power to force others to follow your beliefs (or punish or withhold rights from those people).
    Your argument is akin to the racist who feels victimised when others tell him to not be racist. Poor you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Scott (1,614 comments) says:

    mavxp-”Sorry, but realise that the rules for Christians are rules for members-only, not rules for the rest of society that is until they freely join your club. You can still decide not to consider same-sex unions as licit within your church community, that’s entirely up to you. You have the freedom to believe what you want to believe and practice your religion unmolestered in this country. Enjoy it – it’s called living in a secular state.”

    This is an interesting point you make mavxp. Sorry I will have to go large to reply. The assumption of secularism is that religion is bad and dangerous and needs to be relegated to a private space and has no place in the public square.

    However let us imagine for a moment that God is real and what we know about him in the Bible is true.Then secularism makes no sense because if we are all going to be judged by God then we need to get right with God. Our laws need to be cognisant of God’s will. That is of supreme importance.

    So it all depends on what assumptions you bring to the debate. God who created all things and will judge all mankind cannot be put into a little box called private space. So if you have been able to make that admittedly rather large leap of imagination then you might understand something of the reasoning here. Christianity cannot be purely a private matter. Religion is not a private matter. To say it is a private matter is itself an imposition of secularism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    Jesus some people are thick, aren’t you scott?

    There are an enormous number of xtains who are ALSO secularists. That is, they understand that the government has no role to play in endorsing any one or more religions, and that religion doesn’t get a special seat at the table just because.

    You want to apply your narrow view of religion on the nation, not just to the exclusion of atheists and agnostics, but also to the exclusion of all other religious beliefs.

    If we must obey your god on one man one woman marriage, then we must also obey the muslim god on one man many wives, mustn’t we? And then there’s the hindu gods, all the millions of them, and their views on arranged marriages, child brides and widow incineration. Are you really going there?

    No, you’re not, you just expect privilege for narrow minded views over everyone elses’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. b1gdaddynz (264 comments) says:

    I learnt long ago never to argue about religion or faith with people; people are entitiled to their beliefs and for some people it is a core part of how they identify themselves! But when it comes to law I don’t think it is right for religious beliefs held by some to become or influence laws for all people. I do not think that religion has ownership of the concept of marriage and that throughout history the defintions and laws surrounding it have changed! I do not consider myself pro-gay but I am pro-humans and I don’t see why others who love and cherish each other shouldn’t be able to celebrate in what is a very emotional human way. Any argument that it will somehow undermine marriage is bunk given the number of people who get divorced; it has already been undermined by heterosexuals! It doesn’t mean that it’s going to be used as justification for inter-species since the animal is unable to give consent in a legally meaningful way, same with marrying underaged persons. Polygamous marriage should be ok if all parties are able to consent; allthough I personally find one wife hard enough work and think you have to be crazy to have two :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Scott (1,614 comments) says:

    Weihana-once again the assumption of secularism is not neutral. It is an imposition on those who are not secular. A good example right now is our friend Obama. His legislation will require Catholic institutions to offer contraception in their health care plans. The secular value of “free contraception for all” trumps the Catholic value of “Contraception is a sin”.

    The secularist values are being imposed on Catholic institutions. Again secularism is not a neutral position.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Scott (1,614 comments) says:

    Sorry Luke, I don’t reply to abuse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Scott (1,614 comments) says:

    Anyway must go. Now that Luke Mutton is here no sensible debate is possible.
    Scott-out

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Andrei (2,429 comments) says:

    The concept that homosexuals “are born that way” is a religious position.

    And to question that a secular heresy.

    And when my daughter graduated a few years ago, the ceremony was kicked off with a Maori witch doctor uttering heathen prayers instead of a Bishop – which is ok by secularists who tolerated heathen prayers by Maori witch doctors in the name of multiculturalism.

    You silly secularists don’t even realize you have a religion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. SGA (516 comments) says:

    @Scott “Our laws need to be cognisant of God’s will. That is of supreme importance.”

    No, Scott. YOUR behaviour needs to be cognisant of YOUR God’s will. That is of supreme importance to YOU.

    You want to impose law that reflects YOUR God’s will on all of us, regardless of religion (or lack of it). Can’t you see why people find that offensive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    Scott, you are either an idiot or a liar. Which will it be?

    The US government is simply passing laws that apply to all employers without exception, without fear or favour. What the catholic church wants is special, privileged treatment.

    If they are that concerned, then perhaps their god should have appeared at a Senate hearing to make his case. Until such time as god makes a personal appearance and argues his case, the rest of us will get on with our lives and dismiss you as someone with voices in his head.

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

    Andrei (1,352) Says:
    August 6th, 2012 at 5:40 pm
    The concept that homosexuals “are born that way” is a religious position.

    Nope, it is a provable fact. But keep lying, so we can keep laughing.

    And when my daughter graduated a few years ago, the ceremony was kicked off with a Maori witch doctor uttering heathen prayers instead of a Bishop…

    I find neither to be acceptable. You just want your preference to the exclusion of others’

    You silly secularists don’t even realize you have a religion.

    I don’t realise it, because I don’t have it. I reject all religions equally.

    Come back when you’ve got a real argument to make. Oh, and bring your god with you so we can laugh at him, too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. wat dabney (3,439 comments) says:

    Again secularism is not a neutral position.

    It can be, whereas a theocracy never can.

    When the left uses the State as a vehicle for controlling people’s lives then all manner of freedoms are going to be destroyed, including religious ones.

    What’s required is a right-wing secular State which keeps out of people’s lives as far as possible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    kk: Do you agree that he right of a child to experience an optimum environment in which to to be raised trumps the right of any couple to adopt that child?

    Weihana: No I don’t. The child has a right to an acceptable environment.

    Weihana – you know well enough that optimum in this context means relative optimum, not absolute optimum. If it were your child being adopted out, you would want (probably demand) an optimum environment based on the resources and options available to you at that time. Our society should demand no less when any child is about to be placed with a family for the rest of their lives.

    As a principle, the right  of a child to experience an optimum environment in which to to be raised trumps the right of any couple to adopt that child. Throwing our hands in the air and accepting the status quo because we’ve not grappled sufficiently with the concept of ‘optimum’ is a cop out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    What’s required is a right-wing secular State which keeps out of people’s lives as far as possible.

    Yep Wat, I’ll vote for a right wing state that keeps out of people’s lives?

    But I don’t think that’s what you mean, I think you mean one that intrudes only in the ways of which you approve.

    Like the US rethuglicans winding back women’s access to health services.

    Like the ways that require women to submit to sexual assault by the state before they can qualify for an abortion.

    Or maybe you prefer the ones that insist on teaching ID as science, who want to 10 commandments in all their ugliness on display in every public building, the ones who pass DOMA style laws that the courts keep tossing out.

    And aren’t their tiny little fists all bunched up now that gays no longer have to hide in the military and that atheists can refuse forced attendance at church without being punished.

    Or maybe there is some other form of right wing state, in which case I apologise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    This Govt seems to be content to carry on Labours attack on the institution of marriage; to whit – In 2004, the UN confirmed the institution of marriage by ratifying the “DOHA Declaration” in Qatar. No surprises that good old New Zealand (then under Labour) did not support it, and civil unions soon followed –

    On December 6th 2004, the United Nations General Assembly commemorated the 10th anniversary of the International Year of the Family, by adopting the Doha Declaration’s resolution on strengthening the family. But when the vote was put to the General Assembly – after a year long programme of work that involved thousands of people from around the globe – New Zealand refused to support it.

    The Doha Declaration stated, among other things, that:

    “Every individual has the right to life…”
    “A family composed of a husband, wife and children is the natural, basic element of a society and should be protected by society and by the State;”
    “Evaluate and reassess government population policies, particularly in countries with below replacement birthrates;” and, “Parents should choose what kind of education they give their children,” among others.

    Unofficially, 132 of the 192 countries adopted the declaration without reservation at the UN General Assembly in New York on Tuesday. In supporting the declaration, Member States also agreed to “uphold, preserve and defend the institution of marriage.” Unfortunately, New Zealand was not one of these countries, therefore ‘civil unions come as no surprise.

    New Zealand is still following the anti-family route. In most other respects, we were desperate to follow what the U.N suggests, except for this….

    Hypocrites.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. BigFish (131 comments) says:

    @ Fletch – The Doha Declaration doesn’t say that – http://www.scribd.com/doc/87325000/Doha-Declaration
    Instead it says:
    3 .We reaffirm that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the widest possible protection and assistance by society and the State;
    4. We emphasize that marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses and that the right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized and that husband and wife should be equal partners;
    ~
    13.Take effective measures to strengthen the stability of marriage by, among other things, encouraging the full and equal partnership of husband and wife within a committed and enduring marital relationship;
    (copy pasted from the declaration)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. alloytoo (337 comments) says:

    @Fletch

    http://www.chineseleisure.org/duohadahui/duohadahuienglish.htm
    http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/dahuk/message/4359

    Two sources for the Doha Declaration 2004.

    Neither of them states: “A family composed of a husband, wife and children is the natural, basic element of a society and should be protected by society and by the State;”

    They merely state:

    “Reaffirming that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, as declared in Article 16(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”

    &

    “We reaffirm that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the widest possible protection and assistance by society and the State.”

    Where does: “A family composed of a husband, wife and children” come from?

    It doesn’t appear in the Universal declaration of human rights either.

    ETA, looks like big fish beat me to it with another source. Thats 3

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Scott (1,614 comments) says:

    Ok I’m back. Gosh that Luke Mutton is a piece of work isn’t he? He calls everyone who disagrees with him liars and/or stupid.

    Wat Dabney has an interesting suggestion-a right wing secular state. Which stays out of people’s lives as much as possible. Interesting idea. Not sure it will work though. To have small government you have to have a strong community with shared values and a strong moral order that comes from within not imposed from without.

    Not sure secularism will provide that. I mean we need lots of legislation to impose same sex marriage for example. And regulate it because it will get complicated. Especially with the complicated family situations that will ensue. And lots of state regulators and watchdogs to stamp out “homophobia” among the unwashed masses. And family courts and social welfare will be very busy. Heck same sex marriage will mean plenty of work for the state.

    And what happens if gays do not keep their end of the bargain and divorce and are promiscuous and fail to look after their children properly? We will need even more social workers and family court officers.

    Now a Christian right wing state? That might work?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    You could take turns with all the religions having laws that apply to everyone whether or not you belong to that religion.

    Christians can prevent gay marriage.
    Buddhists can prevent you from eating meat.
    Muslims can prevent you from painting pictures of God.
    Jews can prevent you from eating pork.
    Scientologists can finally ban psychiatry…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. alloytoo (337 comments) says:

    FSM can unban pretty much everything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Pete George (21,804 comments) says:

    DPF tweeted this: 14 Steps That Will Evolve Your Views On Gay Marriage

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Reid (15,530 comments) says:

    Yes Pete. Sadly DPF has missed the point on this issue from day one. He seems to think it’s something to do with human rights. How mistaken can one possibly be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Still Here (1,091 comments) says:

    It’s never been about Human rights otherwise brothers and sisters, metrosexuals and pedophiles would be able to marry as well as homosexuals in all this.

    It’s about reshaping society from it’s Judeo Christian core, DPF is just running interference he understands that, just as he understands that adoption is next.

    You think the hate is bad?
    Wait, it is still coming, hold on to your jobs and children, you think the attacks on some families over smacking was bad enough…….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Andrei (2,429 comments) says:

    DPF just tweeted the tired old talking points that have been issued from party central.

    When you break them down they mean nothing.

    This is the moment when the collapse of the West becomes inevitable because the Liberal elite who are almost entiely composed of people who have had everything handed to them on a plate and have always got their own way by stamping their feet have lost the plot.

    My friends we are in a demographic crisis because people do not raise enough children and haven’t been for the past forty years, that is the practical real world reason why this is a looney tunes idea.

    Spiritually of course this is a rebellion against God and we know where that leads or should

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

    Here is an excellent article by an Irish Academic WHO IS GAY (published in the Irish Daily News yesterday)
    who opposes gay-marriage. As a gay man he was concerned at the conservative-bashing by the pro-gay marriage lobby.
    Good arguments. [“Gay Academic (Ireland) Opposes Same-Sex Marriage http://conzervative.wordpress.com.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. big bruv (12,348 comments) says:

    Andrei

    Why do you post here?, are there not enough religious fuckwits and tea party moonbats over at your own site?

    I am sure there might be another post about Obama’s birth certificate that you morons can work yourself into a lather about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Reid (15,530 comments) says:

    You have to laugh though don’t you, when the editors on one of the nation’s two most important newspapers, say this:

    There is also no reasonable explanation as to why gay weddings would undermine the sanctity of marriage. Each marriage is an individual union between two people. It stretches credulity to suggest that heterosexual couples will suddenly decide not to tie the knot, or to get divorced, just because gay couples have the right to marry.

    I mean fancy that. A newspaper responsible for covering the nation’s capital, the equivalent of the Washington Post, have editors who have no idea how social engineering works in the political arena. It stretches credulity but there we have it in black and white folks. The innocent souls at the Dom Post don’t even understand how politics changes public perception over time so as to shift and change cherished social institutions. They just don’t get it. Now if they can’t even do this, then how pray tell does anyone think they could fulfill any of their role as guardians of the fourth estate? Maybe they should just admit they’re useless and simply stop publishing their rag for one fears it’s of no use to anyone, at least not while the current editorial team are at the reins.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    It’s nearly time for your gay marriage Reid.

    Whether you like it or not.

    Pucker up!

    :twisted: BWUUU-AAAH-HAAH-HAAA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAAAAAAA!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. eszett (2,264 comments) says:

    My friends we are in a demographic crisis because people do not raise enough children and haven’t been for the past forty years, that is the practical real world reason why this is a looney tunes idea.

    How exactly is allowing gay marriage related to this? In fact it will mean more marriages, more families, more kids. You should be all over it.

    A newspaper responsible for covering the nation’s capital, the equivalent of the Washington Post, have editors who have no idea how social engineering works in the political arena. It stretches credulity but there we have it in black and white folks. The innocent souls at the Dom Post don’t even understand how politics changes public perception over time so as to shift and change cherished social institutions.

    What you don’t understand or accept, is that public perception has already changed. Politics is merely following, not leading.

    And what you fail to make clear, is why this is such a bad thing?

    Why is allowing 5% of the adult population to marry such a big drama?
    Undermining the institution of marriage? How so? If anything, there will be more marriages. If they marry at the same rate, there will be 5% increase in marriages. That’s actually strengthening the institution of marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    First earthquakes, and now, volcanoes… looks like god does not approve of this homosexual nonsense…

    Andrei…??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Pete George (21,804 comments) says:

    And the media god didn’t deliver them gold in the shot put either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    eszett, sorry, but you just don’t get it. And neither does DPF.
    Next the State will be trying to change gravity because some very small percentage of people (2% or 3%) would rather it pull stuff up rather than down.

    The State can try to change what Marriage is in Law if it likes (and probably will), but it cannot change the essence of what it is in Truth – that can’t ever change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. eszett (2,264 comments) says:

    Your analogy with gravity is bogus. You seem to think that marriage is some law of physics. It isn’t.
    Marriage is a man made concept, subject to change. It has already changed significantly over the centuries. Including gay couples is really nothing but a minor change, objectively.

    And Fletch, why are you opposing a change in law if a change in law doesn’t change what marriage means to you?

    You can still go on happily stating that you do not accept gay marriage and marriage is only between a man and a woman to yourself while the rest of us do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    Marriage is a man made concept, subject to change.

    NO, it isn’t.
    Marriage is based on Natural Law. The State is affirming something that is already there. The Doha Declaration says the same.

    Marriage will have to be destroyed and become something else – as Brendan Malone posted yesterday –

    Marriage definitely exists, but gay marriage does not, so in order to create gay ‘marriage’, you would first need to completely abolish marriage in order to create a new form that you also call ‘marriage’, but which is actually completely different to authentic marriage in its form – the obvious problem with doing this is you’ve actually abolished marriage in the process, meaning that gay ‘marriage’ is not actually marriage in anything other than name only (because the form of marriage had to be destroyed in order to create gay ‘marriage’).

    The difference between marriage and gay ‘marriage’ is that marriage is RECOGNISED by law, whereas gay ‘marriage’ is INVENTED by law – this is a vitally important distinction, as the state has no legitimate authority to impose itself in this way upon something which exists prior to, and which does not flow from the state.

    Let me give you another example – your right to life does not come from the state, it is not granted to you by them, instead it is yours by virtue of your nature – that is, you are a human being. Your right to life was not invented by the state, but is definitely recognized by them and enshrined in law because the state has a duty to uphold the common good in order to provide the necessary just order that enables human beings to flourish.

    So if the state was to suddenly start enacting laws which denied you, an innocent human being, your right to life, then the state would be imposing itself upon something that it has no legitimate right to impose itself upon, and thus it would now be working against the common good and acting in an illegitimate fashion.

    So,, even gays wouldn’t be “married”, because ‘marriage’ wouldn’t mean the same any more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Marriage is a lifelong commitment of two people in romantic love. That’s what it is now, anyway. And as such, gay marriage is already happening. This law change won’t invent it; it’ll recognise what’s already there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. eszett (2,264 comments) says:

    Oh, Fletch, you are funny at times.
    Marriage is a man made concept. Always has been, always will be. It is invented, declared, defined by man.
    There is no natural law describing marriage.

    It is just plane imaginary nonsense that “marriage” would be destroyed if the allow same sex marriages.

    You would suddenly not be married anymore once the law is passed? What bollocks.

    The fact is, that you don’t get it. You can define marriage for yourself whatever you like.
    We, as a society, however do not have to agree on the smallest common denominator.

    As Ryan said, gay marriage is already here. The law will merely recognise what is already reality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. BigFish (131 comments) says:

    @ Fletch – the quote from Brendan Malone is incoherent. If by nature there are men and women who form marital partnerships with the same sex then the state is merely recognising them too.
    And comparing it to the right to live shows how muddled the man’s thinking is. He just struggles to get his head around change.

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

    re gay adoption . . .

    I find it highly doubtful that most homosexual males fancy the idea of being “parents” – it wouldn’t suit the lifestyle. Gay male promiscuity is phenomenal. A study published in the medical journal AIDS in 2003 found that most “steady partnerships” lasted 18 months at most, and in that time of “monogamy” each partner still managed to chalk up a further 12 conquests on average outside of the relationship. The vanguard of the global homosexual propaganda offensive, Marshall Kirk & Hunter Masden (who’s book After The Ball was a clarion call for hundreds of America’s gay and gay friendly media, entertainment and educational elites to immerse the culture in gay friendly propaganda) were quite candid about this. They wrote:

    “The average gay male seeks novelty in partners, rather than practices, and becomes massively promiscuous; but eventually all bodies become boring, and only new practices will thrill.”

    In other words, gay men seek sexual novelty in their number of conquests. Later on, when they are older and jaded, the thought of another fresh unexplored body no longer turns them on and the quest is on for more deviant sexual practices. Kirk & Masden also stated that:

    “The cheating ratio of committed gay males given enough time approaches 100″

    And from the herald a few months back – a puff piece on civil unions:

    “It’s different for gay men. They tend to be less monogamous. Most of the boy couples we know have gentlemen’s agreements that they can have casual sex, with strict rules,” Ms Rands says.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10803395

    Adopting children to male homosexuals is the height of insanity. I am much more sympathetic to lesbian adoption in fact – but they don’t really need it, one of them just needs to have a willing male friend fill up a turkey baster with cum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Still Here (1,091 comments) says:

    Urban Redneck
    I know a couple too and it is “just once” as a fling, otherwise it’s not on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,560 comments) says:

    Get it right, it’s not Fletch, it’s Feltch. If he doesn’t respect the rights of others to lifve their lives like you and I then he doesn’t deserve the respect from others.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. eszett (2,264 comments) says:

    Urban Redneck (13) Says:
    August 7th, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    re gay adoption . . .

    I find it highly doubtful that most homosexual males fancy the idea of being “parents” – it wouldn’t suit the lifestyle. Gay male promiscuity is phenomenal. A study published in the medical journal AIDS in 2003 found that most “steady partnerships” lasted 18 months at most, and in that time of “monogamy” each partner still managed to chalk up a further 12 conquests on average outside of the relationship.

    Actually no. The study was not about the length of gay relationships at all but how stable relationships decrease the infection rate of HIV. It merely means that the average length of a steady relationship for the purposes of the study was 18 months.

    You cannot draw any conclusions out of that study regarding length of gay relationships from that study.

    And it doesn’t mean that gay men cannot have long lasting stable relationships.

    Adopting children to male homosexuals is the height of insanity. I

    Why? You give no reason other than that you don’t like it? Do you think a gay couple will not be vetted the same way or more than a straight couple?

    There is absolutely no reason not to let male gays adopt if they wish to and are qualify to do so in the same terms as a straight couple does, i.e. the have a long stable relationship, can care for the child, are serious about it and know what they are getting into, stable income, etc. etc.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.