Of choice, commitment, sex, desire and love!

August 3rd, 2012 at 1:28 pm by David Farrar

I didn’t think that there were still people who really think being gay is a choice, but the comments by Colin Craig indicate that it appears some do. Also with people trying to compare same sex relationships to polygamy, it seems it is necessary to deal with this issue. So, let’s be clear about what is and is not a choice.

Sex

You choose whom you have sex with. Yes Colin Craig could “choose” to have sex with a man. That however doesn’t make him gay. Some years ago I was discussing with a group of friends how much money it would take for me to have sex with a guy. I said that it would have to be enough to permanently change my lifestyle – more than I could probably earn some other way. $1 million wouldn’t be enough as the interest on that would be only $80,000 a year and I’d rather earn that from polling! I settled on a figure of $6 million as at 8% would get me $500,000 a year income. Hence amongst certain friends I am now known as the six million dollar man.

Now if I ever was to have sex with a man for $6 million, this would not make me gay. It would just make me a very expensive whore.

Desire

I don’t have any choice over whom I find attractive or desirable. I wish I did – it would make life much much easier. I find women attractive. Never have I found men attractive. Sure I can admire a good physique on either sex, but in terms of actual desire – I am incapable of finding anyone but women desirable.

Now some people may have problems accepting this, but for many gay men, it is exactly the same – except they only find men attractive and desirable, and have no desire to have sex with women. Now personally I can’t comprehend this (I can understand lesbianism very well though – in fact what amazes me is why any woman wants to sleep with a man, if they can score chicks also – but that is more a reflection on me!), but it is just the way some people are. Whether it is genetics, or some unknown combination of environmental factors at a massively early age (or a combination), I don’t know. But for most people, there is absolutely no element of choice about whom they are attracted to.

Yes, there are some people who are bisexual to varying degrees, and can happily have gay relationships for a while, and then have heterosexual relationships thereafter, and be absolutely happy. But just because some people are like this, doesn’t mean all are. I have some gay friends who never ever have been attracted to women, never ever will be attracted to women. If you do not accept this reality, then you are staying deliberately blind.

Love

Just as we get little choice in whom we find desirable, we also get little choice in whom we fall in love with. Again, life would be a lot easier if we did – I have sometimes fallen for the most inappropriate people.

I would hope most readers know what it is like to be in love – especially the head over heels variety. Where you just want to spend every waking hour with that person. Where you phone them six times a day just to chat. Where you share your life with them entirely, and you just feel empty and incomplete without them. God knows, how we have been programmed to feel like this, but we have. The wonder of love, is only matched by the horror of loss.

Now again, I know I can only fall in love with women. I have mates whom I would do anything for, and will be mates until we are dead. But that is different to someone you are actually in love with.

Now I can understand that 25 years ago some people may have thought being gay was just about gay sex, and hookups. Partly because of the then laws in place, gay couples could not be open about their relationships.

But just as heterosexual men and women fall in love with each other, gay and lesbian men and women fall in love with other. This sounds patronising that I even have to say this out loud, but I think some people out there doubt it – they think it is just about sex. Go out and meet some of those couples who have been together 20 or 30 years or longer. Their love is just as strong and just as valid, as any other couple’s.

Commitment

Now as I said you may not get much of a choice around whom you find attractive. You sometimes may not even have much of a choice around whom you fall in love with. You can be with one person and find other people attractive. You can even be married, and find other people attractive. You may even meet someone and realise you are falling for them.

But for me marriage is about commitment. I absolutely love the vows “until death do us part”. I think there is something wonderful about pledging yourself to another in sickness and health for the rest of your life. And sure some marriages fail, and people do cheat. But many do not. And it is via commitment that we choose not to cheat on our partner, and if we think we may be falling for someone else, we then choose to see less of them.

Choice

So in my view we do not get much of a choice about desire/attractiveness or love. But we do get a choice about sex and about commitment. And if same sex couples want to make a life-long commitment to each other to marry, then I think that is a great thing – and something that makes society better – as well as provides much happiness to that couple.

This is why the stuff about polygamy is a red herring. Polygamy is a choice. If people wish to have more than one partner, and they all agree, then that is their choice.

Marriage for me is about a couple who are in love with other wanting to commit to each other for the rest of their lives. I think it is an inspirational thing, even thought it is something I’ve not yet been lucky enough to have. I don’t want any (adult) couple who are in love with each other, who want to marry, to be banned from doing so. People should not be denied marriage on the basis of their sexuality, which they have no control over.

Tags:

199 Responses to “Of choice, commitment, sex, desire and love!”

  1. PaulL (5,981 comments) says:

    Good post DPF, albeit likely to be flame bait.

    I’d add to this on a few bits:
    1. I think $6M is ridiculously high. I don’t see why you’d have to change your whole life just because you had sex once. Just me I guess, I’m obviously not quite so expensive a whore as you are
    2. I think there are some people who (in the words of a colleague) just aren’t fussy about what hole they stick it in. Some of them sleep with any member of the opposite sex they find, some of them sleep with any person they find. Apparently some NZers go so far as sheep (yes, I’m living in Aus at the moment). Not sure that has much to do with sexuality rather than gratification
    3. On marriage, I think the mistake we make is to equate life long commitment with marriage. The reality is that the government should have nothing to do with marriage, but it should be in the business of recognising life-long commitments (as that influences things like next of kin, disposal of assets in various circumstances etc). So the key here I think is to agree that government shouldn’t be involved in marriages of opposite sex people, rather than trying to agree the government should allow marriages of same-sex people. Once we do this, then anyone who likes to make a life-long contract with specific provisions upon breakage of that contract can do so. And anyone who wants to have a religious ceremony to commemorate that is welcome to do so, under the rules of their religion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. anonymouse (716 comments) says:

    Now if I ever was to have sex with a man for $6 million,

    Anyone up for a kickstarter project :)

    [DPF: Now that is evil!]

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

    Great post DPF.

    @Anonymouse

    Count me in for $20.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    Now if I ever was to have sex with a man for $6 million, this would not make me gay. It would just make me a very expensive whore.

    You’re not gay DPF.

    That’s just ‘Gay for Pay’ as we in the porn industry call it… :-P

    $1 million wouldn’t be enough as the interest on that would be only $80,000 a year and I’d rather earn that from polling!

    You’d prefer to earn that from polling, rather than from a poling. Nice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Dick Gozinya (19 comments) says:

    The 6 Million Dollar Man? hmm, John Key can afford you. :P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. PaulL (5,981 comments) says:

    Yeah, I struggle with working every day for the rest of my working life to get $80K p.a., rather than “getting a poling”, as RRM puts it, once. Seems poor economic analysis from where I’m sitting.

    [DPF: I enjoy polling. Based on the time I had a certain medical inspection, I don't think I would enjoy poling :-)]

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

    I’ve thought about this issue before. The problem is that I wouldn’t be able to get or stay hard enough to penetrate a guy. I’d look down at that hairy arse and the blood would rush out of my penis. :(

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. backster (2,172 comments) says:

    I feel like a ‘ chick fil A’

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

    Oh dear – $6mill …………

    Two things:
    1. The trouble with the claim that being gay is how you are born, then there is a problem of the logic of life. Genes that dont breed tend to sort of die out. Its like the CO2 arguement and climate change. There is a logic problem – man made CO2 didnt cause the medievil warm period – so what did? No one knows what did and the CO2 thing is but just a theory (and it might be a good one but its unproven )
    So nature just doesnt keep producing genes that dont breed – its like producing people without testicles and ovaries – the variety wont last.

    2. Society has well established categories and classifications of all sorts of people. If you are a muslim there aint no way out. If youre an untouchable in India there aint no way up. If you are a member of certain tribes then you live within (or without) certain factors. Marriage is a religious ceremony that has sort of been captured by some states. But if we were in france you can got get hooked up at the legal office (as they all have to) and if they want a religious ceremony than they go have it. BUT THE RELIGION CAN CHOOSE WHO IT WILL AND WONT MARRY.
    Marriage should be reserved for people who can (or could if they wanted to) produce offspring in the manner that is regarded as the norm among the animal kingdom.

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

    Nice way to up the hits of a Friday DPF :) But I suspect youve horrified the bible bashers so much theyve all had to rush off to church to save all our souls ;)

    Im with you – never a guy, not now, not ever. I met a friend of a friend years ago in NYC. He was, without doubt, the most beautiful man Ive ever met in my entire life. My then girlfriend went gaga over him, as did ever other woman within visual distance. Even I thought he was gorgeous. But sex with him? Not even.

    And then a further discovery – a fall down a set of stairs whilst walking a bike down them, and I landed on the up turned nose of the saddle, damn near impaled myself on the fucking thing, fair square up the pooper, thank god I was wearing bike shorts. My wife found me 5 minutes later curled in a ball whimpering on the landing. At that point I knew I could never ever take it up the bunty. :)

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

    Carlos – that just means youd be the bitch :D

    DPF – you taking or giving for 6 mil?

    [DPF: I think for $6 mil they get to decide!]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. cubit (356 comments) says:

    Reminds me of the luminary (can’t remember which one) who asked a delightful lady if she would sleep with him for a million. Of course she replied.
    What about ten quid then. Of course not you awful man. What do you take me for.
    Madam we have already established that, now we are merely haggling over the price.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Ross Nixon (559 comments) says:

    The choice to become ‘queer’ is like the choice to become obese.
    It is not often deliberate; just a result of a lack of right thinking

    [DPF: When did you decide to be heterosexual? Did you weigh up the options carefully? Who did you consult on it?

    I've been obese. It was my choice. And more recently I have chosen to be less obese. I can control that to a large degree. For the life of me I can not think of anything I could do to make me "queer". I know I could never fall in love with a man. Just as many gay men can never ever fall in love with a woman]

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

    barry (839) Says:
    August 3rd, 2012 at 2:12 pm
    Oh dear – $6mill …………

    Two things:
    1. The trouble with the claim that being gay is how you are born, then there is a problem of the logic of life. Genes that dont breed tend to sort of die out.

    Oh look, an amatuer scientist with no understanding at all.

    Obviously, the gene (which is yet to be found) exists in straight people. If only straight parents would stop giving birth to gay babies…

    Then, a bit of elementary biology would show you that evolution is a long, slow acting process, that is not directed, therefore all sorts of anomolies will remain. Blue eyes are from a recessive gene and yet we still seem to be making blue eyed babies…

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

    So Ross, tell us about how and when you made your choice

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

    @Barry 2:12pm

    I don’t understand why you equate marriage with raising children? Marriage is all about commitment.

    According to: http://sustaindemographicdividend.org/articles/international-family-indicators/global-childrens-trends
    New Zealand has 47% of Kids born out of Wedlock (08-09) and 21% of Kids being raised in a single parent household.
    If marriage is all about raising kids – then New Zealand is rocking against the norm! So why not let Gays marry.

    Taking you back to Marriage for a second – by pulling up the original wedding vows – as printed in the Book of Common Prayer:
    Groom: I,____, take thee,_____, to be my lawful wedded Wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God’s holy ordinance; and thereto I plight thee my troth.
    Bride: I,_____, take thee,_____, to be my lawful wedded Husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part, according to God’s holy ordinance; and thereto I give thee my troth.

    No where in here is reference to raising babies! Its all about one being committed to the other till death us do part.

    Let Gays get married, to be able to show that commitment to the world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    Many thanks DPF for a thoughtful and eloquent post. Like many unbelievers you are an intelligent fellow. However in the great scheme of things I believe you are completely wrong. Here is why.

    – As you yourself say there are many people who seem to be attracted to the same sex at some stage and the opposite sex at another stage of their life. Anne Heche the American actress who was famously in a lesbian relationship with Ellen DeGeneres is a good example. I actually think she was heterosexual before she met Ellen. She was lesbian during the time they were together. She then went off and married a man. I believe they are separated now – I am not sure where her sexuality is at right now?

    – The number of people who are exclusively attracted to the same sex is probably very low. Maybe as little as 1%? To radically redefine a fundamental institution of our society for such a small number is a very Liberal thing to do. Liberals are attracted by the desire for innovation and change. Conservatives would have the maxim – “first do no harm”.

    – I need to also say that I believe that homosexuality is a sin, sin hurts us, because we are acting outside of God’s will for our lives. At the core of this change is, I believe the desire to free ourselves from Judaeo-Christian morality. At its heart the whole desire for same-sex marriage is a rebellion against God. I believe even the most hardened atheist is in fact a spiritual being denying his or her basic spiritual nature. We will not agree on this. One of us is right and we will only know the truth or not, in the next life that is to come.

    – Marriage in my view would be fundamentally weakened by this innovation. Marriage is struggling at the moment. It is now under competition from de facto relationships where the couple can have the rights and privileges of marriage after two years of cohabitation. So many couples do not get married now. Homosexuals becoming married will further weaken the status of marriage. As you yourself state, you are not attracted by the idea of having sex with men. And you are a pretty liberal fellow. Men do not like the idea of homosexual sex. Even men kissing each other is a big turnoff for probably most New Zealanders right now. So marriage will be weakened by including homosexual unions which are abhorrent to many.

    – I think your analysis also excludes the ability of culture to shape our attractions. For example in ancient Greece it was common for men to marry a woman who would have his children, and then in addition have a homosexual relationship with a boy on the side. This was commonplace and the “love” for a man and a boy was widely celebrated in ancient Greek culture. Bringing homosexual relationships up to the state of marriage can only over time allow homosexuality to flourish and become more widespread than it is now. Our generation may be fixed in our sexual orientation. But given generations of acceptance of homosexuality as being equal and the same as marriage, then it is only reasonable to assume the incidence of homosexuality will increase. Indeed I believe the gay lobby would welcome this development and expect it.

    – So I don’t think society will be “better”. In fact it will be worse. Marriage will become weaker. More and more children will grow up without a mother or a father, and our family disintegration and moral decline can only continue. The disintegration of our families can be seen right now. Go to the average school classroom. In many classrooms the majority of children are from a broken family. Contrast this with the 1960s. Even at that time most of my classmates had a mum and dad at home. Today many kids have been alienated from their fathers. So many children grow up without a dad. Now we will have homosexual relationships where many children will grow up without a mum and lesbian relationships where many children will grow up without a dad. How is that a good thing?

    [DPF: Thanks for a reply focused on the issues. Anne Heche is what one would call bisexual. Bisexuals are different to gays and lesbians. I've been surprised by how many women are bisexual to some degree. Whether we are 1% or 3% gay, I don't think it is that radical a redefinition. For me marriage has been about love and commitment, not just children.

    I do not think acceptance of homosexuality will change its prevalance one iota. It will just have it more open.]

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

    Matty – thats my point – origianlly marriage was a religious ceremony only – and thats what it should return to. Id bet that almost all those out-of wedlock born children and the single parent kids are from parent(s) that have never darkened the door of a church – well certainly not to get married there.

    As for raising babies – i have a feeling that it really doesnt need a hellve a lot of help to come to mind – most of us sort of get a feeling about the time of puberty that making babies sort of comes naturally – well for most people anyway.

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

    Marriage is a religious ceremony that has sort of been captured by some states.

    Marriage is a civil institution that has been hijacked by religion. I don’t mind if some church bloke wants to preside over commitment ceremonies for only heterosexual couples, I just don’t see why he has to call it “marriage”. “Marriage” has a meaning – it refers to registered relationships between two people with a specific legal status.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. wiseowl (895 comments) says:

    It’s all OK until you get to the marriage is about love.
    Bollocks.
    There are those with a mental block.
    Marriage is not about just ‘love’.

    Think of it like a jigsaw. Some bits marry together ,some don’t.

    The bits that fit together marry,the bits that don’t fit together don’t marry.

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

    Marriage is a contract, devised by the state and enforced by the state. If the state wishes to extend that to same sex couples, so be it. And before andrei starts talking out of the patriarch’s hat, if the state also wishes to extend that to polyamorous couples, so be it. Even though that would mean a return to “biblical marriage”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. SGA (1,039 comments) says:

    @barry 2:12 – “The trouble with the claim that being gay is how you are born, then there is a problem of the logic of life. Genes that dont breed tend to sort of die out.”

    Well… brains are complex beasts, and a lot of growing and “wiring” goes on in the womb, and for years after that. The “finished brain” is a combination of what the genes want to do and what the environment has provided. For all we know, sexual preference might be genetically determined in some complicated way, but it might be just as “hard wired” due to some subtle environmental event (e.g., prenatal hormone levels, stress, illness) at a critical point in the brain’s development. The outcome would be the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Ryan Sproull (7,153 comments) says:

    Really interesting post, DPF. Thanks for this.

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

    @ Barry

    Richard Dawkins has some interesting ideas on how the gay gene may have been retained despite our expectation that it would naturally die out of the population – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0

    There are plenty of people who are physically unable to have children due to sterility or other medical reasons. Do you consider their marriages to be null and void?

    Marriage is only given authority by the society in which it exists and so it is society which defines it. You can argue against it all you want but if everyone else chooses to recognise marriage as including gay relationships you might just have to suck it up and accept it.

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

    Marriage isnt: of the (any) church

    Marriage: isnt civil – well mine is :)

    As noted numerous times, its based on pagan rituals. It was hijacked by the church. And nothing to do with “the state” What a crock.

    Marriage is of the people. So the church can fuck off too :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Fost (102 comments) says:

    Where I would disagree with you DPF is that you say you don’t have any control over who you fall in love with. I think you do – it is that you mistake lust for love – you often have no control over who you lust for, but love can (and should) be your choice.

    My wife and I have sort of an arranged marriage – but we arranged it ourselves. I chose to love my wife – from desire to be married and emails we sent each other, and vice-versa. I am a firm believer in deliberate choice where love is involved, anything else – typically with the modern diet of ‘falling in love’ is detrimental to adult relationships – it assumes a lack of control over the situation, thus absolves the person when they then ‘fall out of love’ with a person, as the reason for the relationship breaking up. Long term relationships take work – work to get into one, work to continue it.

    That is not to say your other points are not valid – I’m also 100% heterosexual – I’ve never seen a man that I’ve found even the slightest bit attractive/desirable, but pretty much all women have something attractive to admire for me. But I’ve other members of my extended family that are either 50/50 or pretty much 100% homosexual. From talking to them it is as you say, they only find their own gender attractive/desirable. Then again I’m a freak – I’m not that keen on blonde’s but love gingers!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Ryan Sproull (7,153 comments) says:

    Pretty sure I couldn’t choose to be attracted to another guy. Wouldn’t know what muscle to flex, no pun intended. Attraction seems to be something that happens to you, not something you do. Maybe you could choose to be hypnotised?

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

    Fost: +1 :)

    Give me a smokin hot ginga anyday

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

    I don’t agree with you DPF

    I’m fed up with the port rail of people who don’t agree with the Homosexual lifestyle or same gender marriage as bigots or nasty.
    Someone sent me this yesterday and the crap I read on here and other pages makes sense now.

    http://victimsofgaybullying.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/now-this-is-most-definitely-worth-reading-if-anyone-wonders-why-the-queers-bully-people-let-this-explain-it-2/

    I don’t like some of the tone and language but the info made a lot of sense to me.
    having only read this article and no other I can make no comment on the blog or any links it or the article provides.
    reader beware.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Chuck Bird (4,884 comments) says:

    DPF, is obviously very intelligent as are some of the libertarian bloggers. However, it seems to me that libertarianism is almost like a religious cult or Scientology. They believe that only they know all the answers. If only everyone would accept there ideology the world become an utopia. This is very much like some fanatical religious sects. There is a lot of research to the contrary plus common sense.

    I think it very sad that a lot of otherwise intelligent people could be conned by some very intelligent deviants to the extent that they are closed minded bigots who use abuse as one of their tools to kill debate.

    The dark, intolerant, and abusive nature of the gay agenda
    March 22, 2012
    Fred Hutchison, RenewAmerica analyst

    Originally published April 28, 2004
    Over twenty years ago, I had an intermittent conversation about homosexuality with a gay man at work. Although he persistently brought up the subject, he would periodically fly into a rage and call me a bigot when I disagreed with him. That man went on to become a key homosexual organizer in my city.

    Five years ago, I wrote a letter to the editor of my newspaper concerning how the paper was becoming an organ of gay advocacy. I forwarded the letter to a group who received regular mailings from me. One man responded and disclosed himself as a gay. He accused me of wanting to submit gays to the equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition. He used several abusive terms which reminded me of other encounters I have had with gays, including the individual mentioned in the first paragraph. I replied that I refused to be bullied and intimidated into silence.

    Are gays inherently hysterical, hateful, and intolerant of disagreement, I wondered, or are they reading off the same script? Are they systematically organized to strike out at opponents, and to silence them through intimidation? The answer is that no, homosexuals are not necessarily hysterical, hateful, or intolerant by nature — but yes, this is something they have learned. It is a technique called “jamming,” which is part of an elaborate program to further the gay agenda.
    Propaganda and thought control

    I learned about jamming by reading the articles How America Went Gay, and Thought Reform and the Psychology of Homosexual Advocacy by Charles W. Socarides, M.D., President of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) and a clinical professor of psychiatry at Albert Einstein College of Medicine. He is the author of the book Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far (1995). Socarides drew a lot of his information about the program that involves “jamming” from the book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990′s (1990) by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.

    This book is a blueprint for gay activists for applying brainwashing techniques developed by the totalitarian regime of Communist China. These techniques were catalogued in Robert Jay Lifton’s seminal work, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of Brainwashing in China (1989).

    The program borrowed from the Chinese and put forward for gay activism by Kirk and Madsen involves three steps: 1) desensitization, 2) jamming, and 3) conversion.

    Click below for the rest of the article.
    http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hutchison/120322

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

    Barry et al, if biology is your benchmark, have I got news for you. There are plenty of animals where members of the species have sex with members of the same sex. They even form sex-based same sex bondings. I can understand religious institutions having some say over who they will marry, but apart from where it might cause harm, I can’t see why the State should have such a say. I probably have a more interventionist view of the State than DPF, especially in the role of the state to protect the vulnerable from the strong, but even with my rather more interventionist view, I can’t see any reason why the state should be involved in social engineering that says, because you’re gay, you can’t get married. Lets be clear about this, if you think that the State should tell people who they cannot marry, you are supporting social engineering – and you’d better have a damn good reason for it. If your reason is because you don’t think gay sex is natural, not only is that lame, but its factually wrong. Good on you DPF for taking this on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. gravedodger (1,566 comments) says:

    AS always discussion on this tortured subject causes confusion;
    love / lust.
    opportunity / options,
    trust / temptation
    faith / fidelity
    danger / dopy
    beauty / bottle,
    play / ploy

    DPF sums it up for me with this post

    If Colin Craig is the answer then it was a bloody stupid question, the guys a tool, albeit a rich one

    I think the polygamy comes in when people wonder what word will be attacked after marriage as those hell bent on making a scenario that was until recently taboo if not very illegal, acceptable.
    Relationship stability around developing children is at present often somewhat chaotic with a growing casualisation that on the surface appears to exacerbate a deteriorating social situation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Matthew Holloway (20 comments) says:

    This is the video I’ve been sending to people who think that homosexuality is a choice:

    @Barry who wrote “The trouble with the claim that being gay is how you are born, then there is a problem of the logic of life. Genes that dont breed tend to sort of die out.”

    That explanation is far too simplistic when it comes to evolution and biology in the real world. As an example, bodies try to survive and they reject foreign invaders. This seems to also apply to babies, male babies in particular, and the more males a mother has the better her body gets at raising an immune response which seems to affect male baby sexuality. The more older brothers a person has the more likely it is that they will be homosexual [*] and this may account for 1/7th of a male’s sexuality.
    I’m not saying that this theory is bullet-proof, but I hope this example shows that biology/evolution/sexuality are very complex and that there are many competing demands in genetics.

    Please note that although I’m talking about immune response and so on the point is that people can’t change their sexuality, and that we should encourage committed people in society regardless of their sexuality.

    [*] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_sexual_orientation

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Alan Johnstone (1,087 comments) says:

    What’s the problem with polygamy anyway?

    Loving one person isn’t a choice, but the state says you can’t love two?

    I know a few people in long term stable poly relationships, i think it’s discriminatory the way our legal system refuses to recognize their choices. In my view, any pair (or more) of consenting adults should be able to structure their affairs in anyway they wish.

    Where the victim of this crime?

    ps, $6m ? I think the gentleman doth protest too much :>

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    Alan Johnstone:

    The sky will LITERALLY fall on our heads if NZ enacts gay marriage laws.

    That, and God will smite us with thunderbolts etc.

    These “thunderbolts” may take the form of a whole lot of generalised “social decay” that no-one has actually ever seen or can describe in any detail, but supposedly it will surely happen…

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

    I’m sorry but this reads like the author is so far in the closet they are likely to meet a dwarf driving a sled with a pale-faced witch in it reasonably soon.

    I’m reminded of George Bernard Shaw’s remark “We’ve already established what you are, now we are just working out the price.”

    Own it David, we won’t judge you as a lesser man for it. . ..

    [DPF: Oh if I was gay, I would not be in the closet. I'd be hanging around gay nightclubs every night, finding hotties to go home with :-)]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Chuck Bird (4,884 comments) says:

    Geoff, I do not think the State should allow a couple of wealthy homosexual men to buy an egg, hire a womb, both masturbate in jar and mix it up so neither they or the child when it grows up who the biological father is. Does that mean I support social engineering.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Excellent post, DPF. I think it pretty much sums the topic up and any sensible person would agree with most of it.

    The world wont end, civilisation will continue happily after gay marriage, in fact society will become a more tolerant, inclusive and better place.

    And marriage will not suffer, nor will it become weaker, contrary to the claims of some here. In fact it will become more meaningful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (2,409) Says:
    August 3rd, 2012 at 4:09 pm

    Geoff, I do not think the State should allow a couple of wealthy homosexual men to buy an egg, hire a womb, both masturbate in jar and mix it up so neither they or the child when it grows up who the biological father is. Does that mean I support social engineering.

    What about a wealthy heterosexual couple, Chucky? Should they be allowed to buy an egg, masturbate into a jar (not in a jar) and hire a womb?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Martin Gibson (246 comments) says:

    Lots of interesting comments.

    Although I am happily hetrosexually married, I have occasionally daydreamed about what an interesting world it would be if women and men had the same attitude to sex. Following that logic, it is easy to see why it would be great to be gay if you enjoyed having sex with men, and equally it is very hard to understand why you would want to go and end that happily promiscuous state via a contract that demands monogamy!

    My experience of gay men has often been that they have all of the disadvantages of female company with none of the benefits, while lesbians have often reminded me of angry humourless little men. Daddy issues tend to abound, but that demands compassion not condemnation.

    This gay marriage red herring is something I have generally ignored, because I really don’t care what consenting adults choose to do in the privacy of their own public toilet stalls with holes between the partitions, much less their bedrooms, and the government has no business telling people who they can love.

    That said, it is important to understand that the world’s elite do not like the idea of traditional strong male-female family units, because the men in charge of them tend to get together and resist the agenda. I believe the amount of airplay the gay marriage issue gets is part of that push to reduce traditional family units and head for the Soviet ideal of the state raising the kids.

    For all of you blokes saying “I have no idea what it would take to turn me gay” . . . Far from it being the $6million DPF greedily charges for pole position on his hershey highway, several gay men have told me it is generally five pints of lager and a good E, which is a far more affordable $100 or so for those of you taking a collection to foment a bit of happy mischief ; )

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

    I find the way people use “Homosexual lifestyle” and “gay agenda” to be amusing.

    Would you be referring to the “Black lifestyle” and “Black agenda” if this was a matter of black rights and equality?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. RandySavage (222 comments) says:

    in what universe would threadstarter be given 6 million dollars by either sex for sex?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Chuck Bird (4,884 comments) says:

    “What about a wealthy heterosexual couple, Chucky? Should they be allowed to buy an egg, masturbate into a jar (not in a jar) and hire a womb?”

    No

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Martin Gibson (246 comments) says:

    Randy Savage: There’s always Zimbabwian dollars my friend . . . I hope for Mr Farrar’s sake that his blog does not constitute a contract, because it was not a very tight one if you will excuse the pun.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. b1gdaddynz (279 comments) says:

    Gay males are already not reproducing now so I fail to see how gay marriage is going to suddenly lead to the end of civilisation because of them getting married and not reproducing. Of course with the right to marry they might actually be more willing to reproduce through surrogate mothers and there are of course many children who could be adopted. Also given the rapidly increasing world population and the worlds ever decreasing pool of resources Gay marriage might actually be the thing that saves civilisation :-)
    My mother in law who is very religious and who is from a no sex before marriage religion is about to be married for the 4th time after 3 divorces! The latest guy she hasn’t even dated and is flying to Australia to get married at a registry office straight from the plane! Basically getting married just so they can have sex and then get to know each other. So I can’t really see how gay marriage is suddenly going to undermine the sacred institution of marriage!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Chuck Bird (4,884 comments) says:

    “This gay marriage red herring is something I have generally ignored, because I really don’t care what consenting adults choose to do in the privacy of their own public toilet stalls with holes between the partitions, much less their bedrooms, and the government has no business telling people who they can love.”

    Maybe you don’t but many people do, particularly those with boys or grandsons do. Do homosexual rights trump theirs?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Lucia Maria (2,428 comments) says:

    Everyone might find this website interesting. It has a number of stories of men who resolved their attractions to men, attractions which came out of their immature masculinity. For instance, this guy:

    Homosexuality is also a matter of identity, and here again I had miles to go. I came to see that my homosexual problems were largely a problem of undeveloped manhood. Every man has to go through certain developmental stages; there is no real shortcut to growth. I saw that somehow on my road to manhood, I had taken an emotional detour. Fearing that I would never be “man enough” myself, I bailed out of my personal growth into manhood and started obsessing on the manhood of others. As a result, I was an 8-year-old boy in a 38-year-old man’s body. No wonder I felt totally inadequate in my relationships with other men (except in business, where I had a clearly defined role).

    Physically and intellectually mature, a part of me was stuck in preadolescence. I could not fully and effectively take on my responsibilities as a husband and a father – as a man – because the qualities needed to play such important and difficult roles had never developed in me.

    My first awareness of this fact came to me through reading Leanne Payne’s book Crisis in Masculinity. As I read her explanations of what a man is and learned about the true masculine and feminine, I came to realize that I simply had not grown up. I was not freed from my obligations as a man, but I no longer had to condemn myself when I failed. Rather, I had to start growing up.

    So, more than 20 years ago, I started down the road of growth into manhood. I learned that manhood is to a great extent a matter of doing, and I would grow into manhood by doing the things that men do. I had to venture back into the world of men and boys through a process of learning, testing, failing, getting back up and testing again – and finally succeeding.

    Once I was into this process and had a few successes, a reinforcing process started to set in. I found that I was being affirmed by other men. I started to conform to my own inner sense of what a man is. I started to gain a sense that I was becoming the man God created me to be.

    At first it seemed that “doing the things that men do” was terribly superficial, but I found its consequences were not. Profound changes started to take place in the deepest parts of my being. My core identity started to change.

    This process took years, but today I am confident in and at total peace with my manhood.

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

    Hey chuckup – Which of your “rights” are being trumped by same sex marriage?

    The right to be an illinformed bigot?

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

    Jesus, the fuckingmicks are here to save our souls.

    Pray away the gay, Lucia. Pray away the gay.

    Do you know that far more people are cured everyday of catholocism than are “cured” of homosexuality in a year?

    Do the real research, don’t just swallow the lines you are being fed by American bullshitters; most men who are “cured” were either just experimenting with their sexuality or pretend to be cured by actively suppressing their true nature leading to ruined relationships, self harm and suicide. But the religious have never given a flying fuck about humanity, as long as they can shear the flock. And at $US650 a pop, they’re doing a lot of fleecing.

    You disgust me!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Martin Gibson (246 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird: Sex in public toilets aside, they kind of do if you look at where we’ve come from in terms of the nasty persection of gay folks, (although there is always the tendency to swing too far in the opposite direction).
    Do the rights of grandparents and parents to sleep at night believing their golden boy is not an uphill gardener trump the rights of women to marry someone who hasn’t been intimidated into feigning hetrosexuality?
    Teaching impressionable kids that homosexuality is a natural valid lifestyle choice similar to chosing a job is something else entirely, and I have some concerns about that, given the confusing time that puberty is.
    I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but if an argument arises from compassion rather than bigotry I find it is more likely to be on the right track don’t you think?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Lucia Maria (2,428 comments) says:

    Luke Mutton,

    Ora et labora! :)

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

    Lucia, I played it once, wasn’t all that enamoured.

    I think you meant ora est labora.

    Got to be careful with your Latin.

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

    The question of whether homosexuality is a genetic matter or a ‘curable’ learned behaviour, will certainly become more crucial when children are adopted, or arranged through IVF or surrogacy, by married gay couples.

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

    I don’t believe you Martin.

    Teaching impressionable kids that homosexuality is a natural valid lifestyle choice similar to chosing a job is something else entirely, and I have some concerns about that, given the confusing time that puberty is.

    why? because the kids are confused or that isn’t a valid lifestyle choice?

    then you do a backward skewer to anyone who does think the homosexual lifestyle choice isn’t valid!
    but if an argument arises from compassion rather than bigotry I find it is more likely to be on the right track don’t you think?

    Just say it plain, at least that is being honest.
    You are sadly the bigot, painting people with emotional blackmail words, who don’t agree with you as without compassion.
    Both Chuck and my link to the same article shows that you are clearly well versed in that tactic.

    The biology will always shine out, and what does the DNA say?
    Men are made for women and visa versa.
    That’s what the bits say and it is logical that the software says the same.
    If it doesn’t it is corrupted, misread or interfered with.
    All of psychiatry said the same until the homosexuals bludgeoned the APA’s from within and without.
    read all about it on http://www.narth.org

    This palarva about same gender marriage is just that palarva, the game is much bigger.

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

    ooh another red herring sophia!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. kowtow (8,485 comments) says:

    luke muttonfuckingchops

    Earlier today it was the Americans you didn’t like,now it’s the “fuckingmicks”

    What’s your problem with other nationalities? What has that got to do with anything?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Viking2 (11,471 comments) says:

    Yep and the Catholic church has managed to fix a few of its deviants by prayer or whatever eh?

    Tell us Lucia if the old fella had a handfull of masturbate into a jar (not in a jar probably a clay pot) and gave it to a hire a womb to create the Virgin Birth?”

    Seems logical to me.

    If he could do that why can’t gays?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Chuck Bird (4,884 comments) says:

    “Teaching impressionable kids that homosexuality is a natural valid lifestyle choice similar to chosing a job is something else entirely, and I have some concerns about that, given the confusing time that puberty is.”

    That is where we agree. That is one of my concerns as well as I am opposed to homosexuals raising children. To some that makes me a bigot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. DavidR (102 comments) says:

    Sofia @ 5.15pm – “The question of whether homosexuality is a genetic matter or a ‘curable’ learned behaviour, will certainly become more crucial when children are adopted, or arranged through IVF or surrogacy, by married gay couples.”

    Newsflash, Sofia, it’s already happening. How is the couples being married going to make any difference?

    I know one young guy who was the result of such practices, and a damm fine young man he is too! He’s not gay either.

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

    barry:The trouble with the claim that being gay is how you are born, then there is a problem of the logic of life. Genes that don’t breed tend to sort of die out.

    Firstly, the claim that people are born gay does not imply that it is genetic. Secondly, your understanding of genetics is rather naive. It is fact possible for genes that “don’t breed”, and even for genes that are fatal, to become widespread.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Andrei (2,656 comments) says:

    Господи, помилуй

    It’s like watching a train wreck, the west is committing suicide because it cannot grasp that raising the next generation is the most fundamental economic activity that we undertake.

    The concepts of duty and responsibility have entirely vanished be be replaced by the concept of entitlement to whatever takes your fancy and having a tantrum until you get it.

    Party on little grasshoppers, the summer is coming to an end and a very cold winter is on its way

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

    Michael Mckee:The biology will always shine out, and what does the DNA say?
    Men are made for women and visa versa.
    That’s what the bits say and it is logical that the software says the same.
    If it doesn’t it is corrupted, misread or interfered with.
    All of psychiatry said the same until the homosexuals bludgeoned the APA’s from within and without.
    read all about it on http://www.narth.org

    Nothing logical here. Like many homophobes you appear to have a rather simplistic view of biology. Your claim about “all psychiatry” is empirically false. And NARTH are crackpots who cheery-pick and misrepresent data.

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

    Hey andrei, your “lord” is dead and we are partying like its 1999!!

    OTH, you lot are still stuck 999!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. mara (784 comments) says:

    If “civil unionism” had been given a sexier name, I wonder if homosexual people would now be clamouring for the “M” word? It is always about perception. I mean, how do you say at a party or function, this is my civilly unified partner?

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

    Michael Mckee – I doubt that adoption in relation to gay marriage is a read herring.
    David R – at the moment one gay person may adopt but not two as a couple

    Some here have a tendency to decide your leanings for you, for a simple neutral question.
    However I do not understand why gay marriage is discussed without the next obvious step being considered.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Nigel Kearney (1,013 comments) says:

    If I was gay I wouldn’t my claim to equality to depend on the assertion that I was born that way. Even if just one pair of identical twins turns up with opposite sexual orientations, the whole thing falls apart and my rights along with it.

    And whether you are born that way, love each other, or whatever, is beside the point. It is neither necessary nor sufficient to support a right to marry. Not necessary because people of different religions ought to be allowed to marry even though religion is a choice. Not sufficient because a guy shouldn’t be able to marry his grandmother even if their mutual attraction is absolutely genuine and unshakeable and they’re going to live together regardless. We don’t allow that because most of think it’s yucky and we live in a democracy.

    The reason to allow same sex marriage is that most of no longer think same sex relationships are yucky. It would be nice if there was some kind of high-minded principle behind it, but so far nobody has come up with one that is convincing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Reid (16,467 comments) says:

    Marriage for me is about a couple who are in love with other wanting to commit to each other for the rest of their lives. I think it is an inspirational thing, even thought it is something I’ve not yet been lucky enough to have. I don’t want any (adult) couple who are in love with each other, who want to marry, to be banned from doing so. People should not be denied marriage on the basis of their sexuality, which they have no control over..

    Yes but they already have this and its called Civil Union. Why do the gay marriage proponents ignore this? As has been explained numerous times on this blog, if gays want to claim a Civil Union is not equal because they can’t adopt, then this is a separate debate. It’s a gay adoption debate not a gay marriage debate. Because the issues to such are quite separate. And one would hope everyone here would see that. So this leaves one thing, doesn’t it.

    The gays are saying they are discriminated against, because of a single word. They insist, discrimination is arising because they aren’t allowed to call themselves “married.” That is in fact what they are saying when you boil it down. Isn’t it. No-one here can deny that, because that is precisely what they are saying.

    If anyone disagrees with any of the above, then tell me now and I will debate you on those points. Otherwise I will give this post around 1 hour, then explain to you all why gays using the word “marriage,” is not acceptable. Because the reason all this global thing is happening, is not because gays want to use a 6 letter alphabet combination, is it. That would be crazy, to think that a global campaign has been bought to you by the letters m, a, r, i, g and e. And YET, this, yes this, is PRECISELY what all gay marriage advocates are saying is entirely reasonable. So why all of you people can’t see how nuts you are being over this, I don’t know, but I shall explain the gay perspective as to WHY they want these six letters and WHY they are prepared to involved the WHOLE WORLD to get it, in one hour, after all of you have accepted the above logic or told me why you don’t and we’ve debated that out.

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

    Well put!

    The perfect solution is to have civil unions, which allow any couple to seek the recognition of their commitment by the state and the community. This makes it official and keeps everybody equal. And all this can be achieved by Parliament passing a law.

    But there are many many things which are not susceptible to law-making by politicians. Parliament shouldn’t try to re-engineer basic facts of life such as men having larger muscles or women being able to bear children. We have language and culture and traditions which cannot and should not be changed by a legislative stroke of the pen.

    If there was a need to change the millenia-long meaning of “marriage”, I suppose a Parliament could try to do that. But what is the need? It has never been explained.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Matthew Holloway (20 comments) says:

    @Reid wrote “The gays are saying they are discriminated against, because of a single word. ”

    Oh looky, an image: http://i.imgur.com/fGNXr.jpg

    An important and rejected legal principle that had its roots in racism within the US is ‘Separate But Equal’ and how that’s not equality. They would have separate schools for black students but they were often further away and difficult to reach, and if it’s “equal” then why couldn’t black kids just go to white schools? Separate But Equal was a farce, and I’ve read that why most states in the US are going straight to “marriage”, and not to “civil unions” or similar. Separate but equal basically enforced a whole class of people as second-tier citizens, that’s been commonly called segregation.

    Laws against interracial marriage weren’t removed completely from all U.S. States until 1967. At the time there were calls for the term “marriage” to be restricted to same-race couples but their Civil Rights Act didn’t cater to this distinction and it upheld the principle of racial equality. While churches, religions and celebrants are free to marry whomever they want (within the law, in New Zealand) according to their beliefs it’s important to note that the State has a different role — people can leave a church but the State has a monopoly with different obligations to its citizens.

    Personally though I find the emotional argument for the word “marriage” much stronger. This testimony from a Prop8 case goes over that,

    QUOTE: “Many people grow up dreaming of falling in love and having the perfect wedding. They do not grow up saying “I want to be domestic partners.”
    During the U.S. District Court trial of [homosexual discrimination law], the first time a federal court heard testimony about marriage equality, Dr. Ilan H. Meyer, Professor of Clinical Sociomedical Sciences at Columbia University, testified to the word marriage holds a special significance in our society:
    “It is, I think, quite clear that the young children do not aspire to be domestic partners. But, certainly, the word “marriage” is something that many people aspire to. Doesn’t mean that everybody achieves that, but at least I would say it’s a very common, social, socially-approved goal for people as they think — for children as they think about their future and for people as they develop relationships. For young people, and certainly for people later on, this is a desirable and respected type of goal that if you attain it, it’s something that gives you pride and respect.”

    And of course many children will learn about the ideal of “marriage” before they know their own sexuality. They grow up and then find that they don’t get to have a “marriage”. The way that I view it is that telling people that their love is unequal to heterosexual love is petty and cruel. That Civil Unions are so similar only reduces the argument against marriage equality… it makes people trying to own the definitions of words seem even more petty and cruel.

    According to Mr DPF the wider population are about 2:1 in favour of Marriage Equality, and with people under 30 it rises to 8:1 in favour. My take on this is that in a very powerful sense the argument for Marriage Equality has already been won with the younger generation who are now starting families of their own (like I am, with my wife – we’ve got a girl and another kid on the way for Christmas). The UK are seeking to legalise gay marriage by 2015. Scotland are planning to. Obama is for it. It’s going to happen, sooner or later, and it’s worth considering how people against marriage equality will be judged by history, and their children.

    Interracial marriage didn’t affect anyone’s marriage, neither did Civil Unions, and neither will Marriage Equality for homosexuals. It’s hard enough to find someone to love in this world and the decent thing is to support marriage equality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Martin Gibson (246 comments) says:

    Michael Mckee (5.19pm)
    It was no backward skewer Michael. All I was saying is that I think it is better to be motivated by the New Testament love for one’s neighbour as for oneself, rather than the Old Testament hatred of those not in your tribe. The two ways of thinking can yield similar conclusions — in this case grave reservations about teaching kids to feel free to act out homosexual urges — but my view is the first path to the conclusion would make the world a better place.

    I sympathise with your exasperation at being labelled a bigot because you hold an opinion — I get called all sorts of things by people who don’t want to think or address what I’m saying.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. orewa1 (410 comments) says:

    Gay people are of equal status and value in modern society. But that does not necessarily make them the same as heterosexual people.

    I am proud of being heterosexual. Are they proud to be gay? If not, why not?

    The hetorosexual form of committment is marriage. Theirs is civil union. Cool! Viva le difference!

    I have no desire to adopt their Civil Union institution. But equally I see no reason why they shoud adopt my institution of Marriage. We are equal, but we are NOT the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Andrei (2,656 comments) says:

    Matthew Holloway do you have any idea of how banal and shallow those arguments you put forward are?

    You probably think Oprah Winfrey is a deep thinker and “Home and away” high art.

    shakes head in disbelief

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Mary Rose (393 comments) says:

    I was talking the other day to someone who was brought up a committed Christian, but knew from infancy he was ‘different’ to his brothers. In his late teens, he accepted he was gay.

    Now, thanks to the intolerance of some Christians, rather than somehow change who he is (which would be like dyeing his hair: it would still be the same colour underneath), he has given up his faith.

    So congratulations on that, intolerant types. You can’t change someone’s sexuality, but you can turn a Christian into an atheist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Chuck Bird (4,884 comments) says:

    “According to Mr DPF the wider population are about 2:1 in favour of Marriage Equality, and with people under 30 it rises to 8:1 in favour.”

    If he and his homosexual activists and ideologically driven libertarian mates believed this they would be happy for a binding referendum. That would be lot democratic than legislation decided by opinion poles and focus groups paid for by the National Party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    So, DPF, your whole post comes down to this really –

    “If I desire something then I should be allowed to have it”.

    With the caveat that society says it’s OK and it’s consensual.
    Is that correct? No matter if that choice was a perversion a few decades ago, or the fact that it goes against the form and function of the human body; if I desire it, and it is my choice, then I should be allowed to do it (as long as it’s legal), because I want it and I shouldn’t have to deny myself.

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

    Wasn’t that easy to write Martin?
    Pity you class people who disagree with same sex marriage as old testament hatred by inference.
    and your little slap at the end.

    No I rather take the NT position of love of all people and not wanting them to stuff up society more and damage kids lives by keeping moving down a paradigm of same gender being equal to Mum and Dad amongst other issues in society.

    We never thought civil unions were the same as marriage, it has always been less, that’s why there is the push for same gender marriage if it was equal there would be no arguement.
    I posit that after same gender marriage then will come the adoption equality argument and thereafter the hate crimes laws.

    This isn’t just about same gender marriage, this is war for society and our kids.
    Things are not what they seem, this is a world at war, the prize is your heart and you have a part to play.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Andrei (2,656 comments) says:

    So congratulations on that, intolerant types. You can’t change someone’s sexuality, but you can turn a Christian into an atheist.

    No you can’t, you believe or you don’t.

    You decide you will obey the Lord or you will rebel against him.

    We all have temptations Mary Rose, most of us have sexual temptations, sex is a powerful force and even if we succumb to our temptations, which we all do to some extent or another we understand that what we have done is wrong.

    We all make choices in this world and decide what is important and what interferes with whatever it is we deem important.

    Thus if marriage and family is important that is what you go for, you find an opposite sex partner for whom the same is important and if you get it together marry and raise a family. In that process other things have to be given away forgone if you will,

    Nobody is entitled to a spouse and children, these are things that have to be won and sacrifices have to be made

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Reid (16,467 comments) says:

    What’s the power of a brand, and how does a brand influence behaviour?

    And what does “marriage” represent to the human race, as a brand?

    And if the definition of what “marriage” means, is changed, from being inextricably linked to children, as it is now, to being inextricably linked with sex, as it will be if gays are allowed to use “the brand” then is that a problem for the human race, or not?

    Note the above questions have nothing to do with human rights, for this is not why gays (the one’s behind the campaign) are doing this. The fact many if not most gays really believe it IS about human rights, well, haven’t you ever heard of useful idiots?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. SGA (1,039 comments) says:

    @Mary Rose
    “I was talking the other day to someone who was brought up a committed Christian, but knew from infancy he was different’ to his brothers. In his late teens, he accepted he was gay.
    Now, thanks to the intolerance of some Christians, rather than somehow change who he is (which would be like dyeing his hair: it would still be the same colour underneath), he has given up his faith.
    So congratulations on that, intolerant types. You can’t change someone’s sexuality, but you can turn a Christian into an atheist.”

    When I was in my twenties, one of my friends had been brought up a committed Catholic. He knew that he was attracted to men throughout his teens, so his escape had been to train for the priesthood (if I can’t be gay, then I may as well be celibate sort of thinking). After a couple of years, he and his mentor had a long talk and he left the seminary. We’ve not crossed paths in years, but I’ve heard that he’s a happy, successful man in a long standing relationship. I think he made a good choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Yvette (2,820 comments) says:

    I really think I should be allowed to maori.
    How about we all be treated equally?
    I pay taxes, have contributed to the nation through work like most others,
    I am old enough that I was born well before Hone Harawira [so I was fucking here FIRST], I like mountains, rivers, land lakes, and believe in a big sky chief.
    Why the hell am I not allowed to be maoried?

    What happened, Reid, your hour is up

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. big bruv (13,901 comments) says:

    “You decide you will obey the Lord or you will rebel against him.”

    How can you’obey or rebel against something that does not exist?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Viking2 (11,471 comments) says:

    orewa1 (232) Says:
    August 3rd, 2012 at 7:35 pm

    Gay people are of equal status and value in modern society. But that does not necessarily make them the same as heterosexual people.

    I am proud of being heterosexual. Are they proud to be gay? If not, why not?

    The hetorosexual form of committment is marriage. Theirs is civil union. Cool! Viva le difference!

    I have no desire to adopt their Civil Union institution. But equally I see no reason why they shoud adopt my institution of Marriage. We are equal, but we are NOT the same.

    3 years in a defacto relationship and you are in a civil union like it or not. At that point the Law takes over when it comes to relationships. No need for a ceremony nor a bit of paper, the Law makes you a Union of two.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Viking2 (11,471 comments) says:

    Definiotion of Marriage.

    Now tell me why gays don’t qualify. You simply cannot.

    Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship.
    The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged.
    Such a union is often formalized via a wedding ceremony.
    In terms of legal recognition, most sovereign states and other jurisdictions limit marriage to two persons of opposite sex or gender in the gender binary, and some of these allow polygynous marriage.
    In the 21st century, several countries and some other jurisdictions have legalized same-sex marriage. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity.

    People marry for many reasons, including: legal, social, libidinal, emotional, financial, spiritual, and religious.

    These might include arranged marriages, family obligations, the legal establishment of a nuclear family unit, the legal protection of children and public declaration of commitment.[1
    ][2] The act of marriage usually creates normative or legal obligations between the individuals involved. Some cultures allow the dissolution of marriage through divorce or annulment.
    Polygamous marriages may also occur in spite of national laws.

    Marriage can be recognized by a state, an organization, a religious authority, a tribal group, a local community or peers.
    It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution irrespective of religious affiliation, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction.
    Forced marriages are illegal in some jurisdictions

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. SGA (1,039 comments) says:

    @Viking2 – “We are equal, but we are NOT the same.”

    You’re not related to the Viking2s from Alabama by any chance? South Birmingham? Just curious.

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

    Reid (11,237) Says:
    August 3rd, 2012 at 7:57 pm

    yep got it in one.

    it’s dilution of the brand as part of the attack!
    an female american lawyer wrote on that a couple of years ago at and.com
    http://www.wnd.com/2004/05/24528/

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

    yet another bully – SGA

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Andrei (2,656 comments) says:

    Rofl wikipedia – Viking?

    Defintion of marriage Oxford Dictionary 1960

    noun
    The formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. SGA (1,039 comments) says:

    @Michael Mckee – oh dear, my two posts on this thread make me a bully? You need your head read.

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

    Marriage is a real mockery in any case

    That which god has put together a lawyer can pull apart . The marriage act is one of the few acts that still goes back to the ark it takes no consideration that people marry now days for residency, student fees, visas money etc. so if two people of the same sex choose to get married for love what is so wrong with that?

    When people bring up religious issues I point out that a lawyer trumped God when my marriage vows were re written after 23 years this lawyer compelled me to contract out of my marriage vows .. the ironic thing was that he was on the vestry of the church in which I was married .

    Its about love commitment and consideration gender has nothing to do with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Defintion of marriage Oxford Dictionary 1960

    lol, just shows how far behind you are, Andrei.

    Time to arrive in the next millenium. Just watch out when you hit the year 2000, you might encounter some snags and civilisation may collapse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Is that correct? No matter if that choice was a perversion a few decades ago, or the fact that it goes against the form and function of the human body; if I desire it, and it is my choice, then I should be allowed to do it (as long as it’s legal), because I want it and I shouldn’t have to deny myself.

    Looks like Fletch never had a blowjob.Fits all the descriptions above.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (2,415) Says:
    August 3rd, 2012 at 5:26 pm

    “Teaching impressionable kids that homosexuality is a natural valid lifestyle choice similar to chosing a job is something else entirely, and I have some concerns about that, given the confusing time that puberty is.”

    That is where we agree. That is one of my concerns as well as I am opposed to homosexuals raising children. To some that makes me a bigot.

    What utter rubbish. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle nor a choice nor can you raise someone into homosexuality.

    Your “concerns” are based on nothing but ignorance, prejudice, fear and an irrational despise of homosexuals.

    The very notion that gays raise gay children is idiotic nonsense, as is the notion that it is a “lifestyle choice”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. rolla_fxgt (311 comments) says:

    Using some of the logic shown by certain people on this blog, we should reassess the role of religion in NZ, as its only practiced by a minority, and getting less by the day. So laws should be changed to requiring churches to pay tax, just like any other social organisation, and references to religion should be removed from laws.
    But to be honnest relgion doesn’t really bother me, I just ignore it, its only the obnoxious ones who try to convert all others that I have a problem with. Just like I have a problem with gay people who try to tell me because I don’t 100% support them, and occasionaly make homophobic jokes, that I’m against them.
    I have a number of relgious friends, but we all respect each other point of view, and that’s how it should be, as long as it doesn’t impact directly on you, then their isn’t actually a problem, its just a percieved problem.

    Some people want to beleive in what I see as a made up story, others want to have their rights to marry someone of the same sex legalised. Neither affect me, so why should I say either can or can’t happen. To be honnest I’m more worried about the people that try to tell me how I can and can’t think or express myself.

    I fail to see how a little change to the law will bring about the end of mankind, or affect anyone else apart from those who choose to have it affect them. Now I’m not sure why some gay people want marriage if they can have a civil union, but somehow they feel its less than marriage, and who am I to say their view is wrong? Just like they can’t say my view is wrong. Just we think differently, but if a law change is of little effect to the majority, then why not do it, it does no harm. Except perhaps to those who view it as wrong, who really are a small minority in this day and age.

    Also I kind of agree with Colin Craig (as scary as the thought is) that if we allow gay people to marry, then why shouldn’t we allow polymarriage. I think whaleoil put it best, that if people want to have two mother in laws then that’s for them to suffer. I don’t think poly marriage would do any harm either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. nasska (11,510 comments) says:

    The subject of gay marriage has been done to death & decency demands that its corpse should be buried if only for health reasons.

    On a slightly different tangent is the history of how the state became involved in the matter of marriage at all. Ref: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html?_r=2&em&ex=1196226000&en=5e70532fce256fe0&ei=5087&oref=slogin

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

    Reid:And if the definition of what “marriage” means, is changed, from being inextricably linked to children, as it is now, to being inextricably linked with sex, as it will be if gays are allowed to use “the brand” then is that a problem for the human race, or not?

    What a logical mess.

    Nobody is proposing that marriage be changed to something that is inextricably linked with sex. Indeed the only people who think that marriage is inextricably linked to sex are people like yourself since that is how children are made. It is rather difficult to see how marriage could be linked to children without being linked to sex.

    Polls suggest that the majority of people here and now do not share your conception of marriage and that they think it is about two people in love. Changing the law will simply ensure that the law is up to date with what most people already understand the term to mean.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Andrei (2,656 comments) says:

    Polls suggest that the majority of people here and now do not share your conception of marriage and that they think it is about two people in love.

    No they don’t – the elite of a tiny isolated little nation at the bottom of the world which 90% of the people in the world have never heard of might think that two men can marry each other

    But the vast majority of the citizens of this planet think that it is an absurd notion – which it is.

    You people have lived cosseted and sheltered lives with your every whim pandered to – and you are fucking clueless about the real world.

    You are going to get a real shock sooner or later when reality strikes and you have squandered your inheritance

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Reid (16,467 comments) says:

    When people think of “marriage” they think of family. That’s just natural. Part of being human.

    But gays want to change that, so when we think of marriage, we think of sex, instead.

    And if gays don’t want that, then why are they insisting on using the “m” word, how come they’re not happy with the civil union word?

    An interesting question is, why are many people who aren’t gay, so very very keen, on letting them do that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. SGA (1,039 comments) says:

    @Andrei 9:03 – But the vast majority of the citizens of this planet think that it is an absurd notion – which it is.

    Well… that was the case with women voting many years ago, wasn’t it. How did that pan out?

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

    Andrei:No they don’t

    Yes, they do. A poll last year found 60% in favour, 34% against. I was obviously talking about NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Reid (11,239) Says:
    August 3rd, 2012 at 9:04 pm

    When people think of “marriage” they think of family. That’s just natural. Part of being human.

    But gays want to change that, so when we think of marriage, we think of sex, instead.

    Funny that it is only the opponents of gay marriage that constantly turn the discussion towards sex.

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

    reid:But gays want to change that, so when we think of marriage, we think of sex, instead.

    That isn’t what gays want. And in any case the polls show that most people do not share your conception of marriage. All that is being suggested is that the law be changed to reflect the current meaning of mariage that the majority of people have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Reid (16,467 comments) says:

    Funny that it is only the opponents of gay marriage that constantly turn the discussion towards sex.

    Well the victors in a war talk about freedom whereas the VICTIMS are the ones who talk about the bloodshed eszett. See any parallels there or just woosh, over your head, is it?

    That isn’t what gays want. All that is being suggested is that the law be changed to reflect the current meaning of mariage that the majority of people have.

    Yes it is chiz. Unless you know something I don’t. What are they asking for then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Just how are you the victim in this whole scenario, reid?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Griff (7,720 comments) says:

    “Funny that it is only the opponents of gay marriage that constantly turn the discussion towards sex.”

    Seems to be that the god squad can only focus on men putting things up the anal passage of other men
    Must have something to do with the priests they knew as kids

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    Judging from the Chik-Fil-A turnout yesterday, the majority of people believe more in the traditional form of marriage. It only seems like most people agree with same-sex marriage, because that is the meme the media put forward.

    The reality is quite different.
    In fact, most gays do not want marriage either. It is being foisted upon them by liberals who really have another agenda entirely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Reid (16,467 comments) says:

    Just how are you the victim in this whole scenario, reid?

    We’re all victims eszett. You haven’t understood a word that the opposition has said, have you.

    All humans depend on procreation.

    All societies use the family as the central procreation unit.

    Families teach all sorts of social skills. For example they teach girls how to get on with boys. They teach children how to get on with adults. They teach children how to get on with children. They teach boys how to respect girls. They teach all sorts of things. For millenia, these skills have been transmitted by osmosis, by both a man, and a woman and been picked up differently by osmosis, by the different sex children, in different ways, at different times in their respective developments. Now, in the last few decades, society, for the first time ever, is being asked to accept, as normal, SoP behaviour, the proposition that these skills could be transmitted by a man, a woman, two men, two women, it doesn’t matter, and to allege that’s preposterous, is discrimination.

    Well sorry planet Earth, if you seriously think that this is going to work when it’s never before been tried in history and results to date are dismal, you’ve all gone totally fucked in the head, and I’m not interested in playing with you, anymore.

    So you see eszett, I AM a victim, by virtue of the fact you’re completely fucking bonkers, and I’m not. It’s really lonely out here and I’m thinking, I need a huge massive compo package to save me from all you mentals. So how about a cool say, 20 million? Is that OK eszett? So that’s how I’m the victim. Anymore questions? If not, let me know where my cash is cause I want to lick my wounds and buy a nice garage in Auckland before even a garage becomes unaffordable for someone with $20m to spend.

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

    And the type of people, and I use that term very loosely, the type of people who think like reid, fletch, andrei, et al, have decided in Missippi that they will not permit a straight hetro couple to marry in their church because they are black

    The more things change, the more they stay the same for the troglodytes of god.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    Funny that it is only the opponents of gay marriage that constantly turn the discussion towards sex.

    Because that’s what it’s ultimately all about, isn’t it? Homosexual. Their conduct as regards sex is what mostly defines them; in fact, until 1986, homosexuality was universally defined as same-gender sexual conduct. By extension, a homosexual was defined as anyone who engages or desires to engage in such conduct. The “gay” movement itself embraced this definition, in which the term “homosexuality” had meaning only in relation to same-gender sexual behavior.

    That all changed later, of course.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Puzzled in Ekatahuna (346 comments) says:

    Reid Families teach all sorts of social skills. For example they teach girls how to get on with boys. They teach children how to get on with adults. They teach children how to get on with children. They teach boys how to respect girls. They teach all sorts of things. For millenia, these skills have been transmitted by osmosis, by both a man, and a woman and been picked up differently by osmosis, by the different sex children, in different ways, at different times in their respective developments. Now, in the last few decades, society, for the first time ever, is being asked to accept, as normal, SoP behaviour, the proposition that these skills could be transmitted by a man, a woman, two men, two women, it doesn’t matter, and to allege that’s preposterous, is discrimination.

    Marriages only do this if there are children.
    ___________

    If the ‘brand’ MARRIAGE is usurped by gays, another word will have to be found but before that I’d think all marriages will be described as ‘marriage’ or ‘gay marriage’ anyway.
    “Mum, why does Jennie have two mothers, and I have you and Daddy? Are they married?”
    “Yes, but it is a gay marriage – it’s different, they have two mothers or two fathers”

    How the hell else will anyone explain it to kids, who don’t accept krap?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    We’re all victims eszett. You haven’t understood a word that the opposition has said, have you.

    All humans depend on procreation.

    All societies use the family as the central procreation unit.

    Nonsense, reid. Pure and utter nonsense.

    You haven’t got a single rational and sensible argument.
    Just look at how you are trying to redefine marriage as “procreation unit”. What cynical and demeaning nonsense.

    You make me laugh.

    Usually it is the one inside the asylum who is always calling every else bonkers.

    You poor victim you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Reid (16,467 comments) says:

    eszett sadly my friend the ones who are condemning both my arguments and the arguments of those who agree with me, show few signs of understanding how social psychology operates and changes people’s thinking over time. This is the real goal of gay marriage, and always has been.

    It’s not giving people the ability to walk down the aisle of a church in the next few years, although that will horrify and thrill a few million souls. It’s not that, no.

    It’s the opportunity in several generations, 40 years time, to look at the behaviour of those children not yet born but who grew up with lesbians and gays being just like mums and dads. Its their behaviour, when it’s their turn to get married, in 2050, that this policy today, is aimed at.

    That’s the first thing to recognise. What the target is.

    And I dare say eszett, that most of you foolish proponents hadn’t even discerned what the real actual target was, let alone what would be in the minds of those targets in 2050. I dare say eszett, that you, DPF, Whaleoil, John Key and all the rest of you fools who support gay marriage today because “that’s what the polls say,” didn’t even realise, did you, that the real target was as I just described? No, of course you didn’t. Let alone realise what the actual purpose and nature of the projectile that is aimed at that target. No, of course not. If you can’t even recognise the target, how the fuck would you have the first fucking clue, what the real operation was against it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. adam2314 (377 comments) says:

    Oh shit !!.. thought I had found myself into one of my mothers book selection groups..

    Do I desire her ?? Piss off..

    Do you love me she ask’s..

    I fuck you don’t I .. I reply..

    what is it with this womeny thing these days ??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Puzzled in Ekatahuna (346 comments) says:

    Solo-parent “families”, usually with the male getting what he wants then pissing off, will fuck this country long before several decades of gay marriage does any similar damage

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    All humans depend on procreation.

    bullshit

    if half the worls population croaked tomorro the ‘world” would recover in 100 years

    a few fags wont make no big diff !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Fletch (3,145) Says:
    August 3rd, 2012 at 9:46 pm

    Funny that it is only the opponents of gay marriage that constantly turn the discussion towards sex.

    Because that’s what it’s ultimately all about, isn’t it? Homosexual. Their conduct as regards sex is what mostly defines them;

    Thanks Fletch, you couldn’t have proven my point better if you wanted to.

    They are human beings. Their homosexuality is NOT what mostly defines them any more or less than your heterosexuality mostly defines you. You cannot argue one without the other.

    You are the ones that want to reduce the whole conversation to sex, simply because YOU define homosexuals mainly by their sexuality.
    You define them in that way, because it is their sexuality you find most offensive and that is simply because you think it’s yuck.

    That’s the basis of your whole and entire argument: Homosexuality is yuck.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Wow, reid, bring on the gay conspiracy theories. Bonkers indeed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Reid (16,467 comments) says:

    a few fags wont make no big diff !

    Don’t be confused Colville. It’s not about that, and never has been mate.

    It’s about changing the perception of the gay community salami slice by salami slice (so you don’t notice its happening) and that’s fine, normally, except guess what, this time, they’ve decided to attack the family unit in their quest for acceptance.

    Nothing against the gay community. However I do rather like the family unit and I’m afraid if it comes down to one or the other then well, hey, no contest. Simple as that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    this time, they’ve decided to attack the family unit in their quest for acceptance.

    And just how are they doing that? By wanting to create family units of their own? Great strategy!

    And above all, why? Just why are “they attacking the family unit”?

    you just sound more and more bonkers, reid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Puzzled in Ekatahuna (346 comments) says:

    I have usually come across to types of homosexual.
    One who I can tell is queer from bloody blocks away, and that is all that she or he is about.
    The other is just like any other male and it is often someone else who says “You do realise he is gay”
    When these two types marry the first will make a fuss – “I married, and it’s a GAY MARRIAGE!” – in yer face! And still make the definition between the two,
    And the second probably won’t mention it.
    So I don’t think civilisation is going to be destroyed by this.

    It’s more likely Romney will make so off-the-cuff comment to offend Iran enough they will attempt to blow Washington off the face of the earth, or Fukushima rector 4 rod storage will fall over and do it for everyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    eszett, sorry, but you’re wrong.
    If homosexuals aren’t defined by their differing sexuality, then what ARE they defined by? That is the principal difference between straights and gays: their sexuality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    Here’s what ex gay-rights leader and former editor of YGA (Young Gay America) Michael Glatze says about it –

    We believe, under the influence of homosexuality, that lust is not just acceptable, but a virtue. But there is no homosexual “desire” that is apart from lust.

    Lust takes us out of our bodies, “attaching” our psyche onto someone else’s physical form. That’s why homosexual sex – and all other lust-based sex – is never satisfactory: It’s a neurotic process rather than a natural, normal one. Normal is normal – and has been called normal for a reason.

    Abnormal means “that which hurts us, hurts normal.” Homosexuality takes us out of our normal state, of being perfectly united in all things, and divides us, causing us to forever pine for an outside physical object that we can never possess. Homosexual people – like all people – yearn for the mythical true love, which does actually exist. The problem with homosexuality is that true love only comes when we have nothing preventing us from letting it shine forth from within. We cannot fully be ourselves when our minds are trapped in a cycle and group-mentality of sanctioned, protected and celebrated lust.

    As a leader in the “gay rights” movement, I was given the opportunity to address the public many times. If I could take back some of the things I said, I would. Now I know that homosexuality is lust and pornography wrapped into one. I’ll never let anybody try to convince me otherwise, no matter how slick their tongues or how sad their story. I have seen it. I know the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Fletch, you said that homosexuals are mostly defined by their homosexuality, as if that’s the one and only aspect about a person. They are mainly homosexual, everything else is not only secondary, it is irrelevant.

    You are the one trying to reduce everything to their sexuality and trying ignore everything else about them. And by that dehumanising them, a well used tactic. The homosexuals.

    That they are like everyone else, people who love, live, desire, etc and defined by these things has never occurred to you.
    You are the one that reduces them to one aspect and try to define them only through that aspect.

    As if when someone comes out they loose all humanity and become nothing but homosexuals!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Yeah right, like quoting Michael Glatze, who converted to “Christianity”, is really going to be unbaised, neutral and factual. Might as well write that bullshit yourself, fletch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. lilman (959 comments) says:

    piss off gay marriage, im gonna puke.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Chuck Bird (4,884 comments) says:

    “Yes, they do. A poll last year found 60% in favour, 34% against. I was obviously talking about NZ.”

    If Wall and Chauvel believed that poll genuine they would be happy with a binding referendum. They are not because they do not beleive the poll. It is not more true than everyone’s sexual preference(s) is determined at birth.

    A binding referendum is a lot more democratic than legislation based on some dodgey poll.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    eszett, you just don’t get it.
    If it weren’t for the difference in their sexuality, we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all.
    Of course they are the same in every other aspect of their lives – no one is refuting that.

    This whole topic is based around a persons sex and sexuality.
    That is the thing that distinguishes a heterosexual from a homosexual – their sexuality.
    Why can’t you grasp this?

    I am also saying (as I said above) that DPF’s whole argument seems to be that if someone has a desire, then they should follow that desire if it’s legal etc. I will have to question him about this when (I’m sure) sex with minors becomes legal. See if his view is the same then and now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    It’s quite funny, Chucky, that you put the results in the poll and the determination of sexual preference into one sentence, as neither fits with your worldview, so you prefer to ignore and deny all evidence and just continue on with your mantra.

    You could know better, but you deliberately chose to hold on to your prejudice and preconceived ideas, no matter how debunked and factually wrong they are. It’s called willful ignorance.

    And your understanding of democracy is shoddy at best. The vote will be be a conscience vote, based on what our representatives believe is the right thing to do. Polls may play a role, but certainly are not the sole basis to do things. They will vote for it because it is the right thing to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    Actually, I should have said that the thing that differentiates a heterosexual and a “homosexual” is their sexual desire, or sexual conduct, as I do not believe in orientation theory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Of course they are the same in every other aspect of their lives – no one is refuting that.

    Thanks Fletch. And that is exactly why they should not be discriminated against. That is exactly why there is nothing wrong with allowing them to marry. That is exactly why there is nothing wrong with allowing them to have and raise children.

    They are the same in every other aspect of their lives.

    Why can’t you grasp this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    eszett, one could use the same argument for paedophiles.
    It is their sexuality that differentiates them – they are the same in other aspects of their lives and should not be discriminated against because of their desires.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. wat dabney (3,761 comments) says:

    Colin Craig chooses to be straight. Allowed to marry.

    Colin Craig chooses to be gay. Not allowed to marry.

    I fail to see the justification.

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

    Fletch (3,150) Says:
    August 4th, 2012 at 10:02 am
    eszett, one could use the same argument for paedophiles.

    No, paedophiles are not in any way comparable to homosexuals. Homosexuals cause no harm to others. There’s your difference.

    Now, one could, and should, make the comparison between catholic priests and paedophiles, but that would be redundant, wouldn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    Luke, I believe that homosexual conduct IS harmful, as I have said many, many times.

    Life expectancy of gay/bisexual men in Canada is 20 years less than the average; that is 55 years.
    GLB people commit suicide at rates from 2 to 13.9 times more often than average.
    GLB people have smoking rates 1.3 to 3 times higher than average.
    GLB people have rates of alcoholism 1.4 to 7 times higher than average.
    GLB people have rates of illicit drug use 1.6 to 19 times higher than average.
    GLB people show rates of depression 1.8 to 3 times higher than average.
    Gay and bisexual men (MSM) comprise 76.1% of AIDS cases.
    Gay and bisexual men (MSM) comprise 54% of new HIV infections each year.
    If one uses Statistics Canada figure of 1.7% of GLB becoming infected, that is 26 times higher than average.
    GLB people are at a higher risk for anal cancers.
    For the exact quotes, please see pages 3 and 4 of the HRC complaint.

    Click herefor the whole original HRC complaint document.

    So even gays admit as much. In Canada, where gay marriage has been legal for years, it’s not fixing any of their problems.
    This is from their gay magazine Xtra, dated Tuesday, February 17, 2009 –

    Over the past 10 years [Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada] have contracted with experts on gay, lesbian, bisexual health to produce studies [using public health care dollars] on the many health issues that are endemic to our community and ask for recommendations how to address those issues,… The report’s list of health issues affecting queer Canadians includes lower life expectancy than the average Canadian, suicide, higher rates of substance abuse, depression, inadequate access to care and HIV/AIDS… There are all kinds of health issues that are endemic to our community…We have higher rates of anal cancer in the gay male community, lesbians have higher rates of breast cancer …the reality is there is more GLBT people in this country who die of suicide each year than die from AIDS, there are more who die early deaths from substance abuse than die of HIV/AIDS….It seems that… now that we can get married everyone assumes that we don’t have any issues any more. A lot of the deaths that occur in our community are hidden, we don’t see them. Those of us who are working on the front lines see them and I’m tired of watching my community die”

    Perhaps you don’t consider that lifestyle as being harmful to society, but I do.

    As far as Catholic Priests and paedophilia, you fail to mention that most of the offending was homosexual in nature.
    Funny that. Oh, and most offending by priests wasn’t paedophilia, it was ephebophilia (mostly 15/16 years old and above).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Chuck Bird (4,884 comments) says:

    “And your understanding of democracy is shoddy at best. The vote will be be a conscience vote, based on what our representatives believe is the right thing to do.”

    Do you remember FPP? There was some justification conscience votes then. All MP represented there constituents. Under MMP only half do. Important legislation like that and Maryan Street’s bill on euthanasia should not be determined by a group of MPs who represent no one.

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

    GLB people commit suicide at rates from 2 to 13.9 times more often than average.

    Because people like you hound them, belittle them, and refuse to let them be.

    Because people like you think you can “pray away the gay”.

    Because people like you are incapable of live and let live; you need to take your petty and jealous god out for a walk so he can cast more of his hate on others. Except it isn’t a god, is it?It is you, using a god as cover for your despicable actions.

    In Canada, where gay marriage has been legal for years, it’s not fixing any of their problems.

    No, and that is because to fix their problems, we need to eliminate people like you, the bigoted, the haters, the holy joes. Then, and only then, will homosexuals be free to live a life unmolested.

    How many suicides can we lay at your door? Quite a few, I reckon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. wat dabney (3,761 comments) says:

    Fletch,

    For all your lengthy posts you never actually address the issue, which is that gays should be free to marry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    Luke, you’re living in the past.
    There are more people like yourself who support gays and gay marriage than ever before, and yet you’re blaming suicide on homophobia? Get real. Gayness is accepted and mainstream now. There’s a gay character in just about every TV show, thanks to liberal Hollywood. In places like San Francisco and the Netherlands where gay sex is normalized, the stats are worse, so I have difficulty with the theory that the cause is Homophobia.

    I don’t know anybody who “discriminates” against gays, unless you count the support of traditional marriage to be discrimination (which I do not, and I doubt gays do either).

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

    You’re a liar fletch.

    If this isn’t discriminating against gays, then I don’t know what is.

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/08/general_debate_4_august_2012.html#comment-1004797

    And this is from someone who follows the same god you do, reads the same bible you do, and thinks that the best way to handle gays is execution.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    Luke, so you’re taking something that one pastor says and making a case from it?
    Maybe you should look up and see what the Catholic Church says about it –

    2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

    2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

    2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

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

    Nice word salad, fletch. But what does it mean?

    So you’re going to accept with respect and compassion someone you’ve just called disordered? nICE ONE.

    How can anyone take seriously the pronouncements on homosexuality by a man who has never married, lives in a big house with lots of other men who’ve never married and wears a dress?

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

    I need to also say that I believe that homosexuality is a sin, sin hurts us, because we are acting outside of God’s will for our lives. At the core of this change is, I believe the desire to free ourselves from Judaeo-Christian morality. At its heart the whole desire for same-sex marriage is a rebellion against God. I believe even the most hardened atheist is in fact a spiritual being denying his or her basic spiritual nature. We will not agree on this. One of us is right and we will only know the truth or not, in the next life that is to come.

    Do you even realise how absolutely mentally ill you sound? No, we don’t have to wait until the “next life that is to come” to know, just as we don’t need to wait until the next life that is to come whether or not Hindu superstition is correct or not, or whether Muslim beliefs are correct or not – Christian belief is equally as demented and proven to be fairytales that were created by men. Answer a few of these questions:

    Dear Christians:

    God here. I thought I would take the time to personally explain my absence in the Aurora shootings. While I was at it, I thought I would also explain my absence during every murder, massacre and crime that has ever taken place in World history, and in every war, in every famine, drought and flood.

    You see, I do not exist. I never have. Did it really make sense to you that I would create an entire Universe with billions of billions of planets and wait about 13,700,000,000 years just so I could focus on a few Jews from Palestine about 2,000 years ago while ignoring the rest of the 200,000,000 people on the planet at the time? Did I make those few Jews or did those few Jews make me?

    Further, do you really think I would sit back and do nothing while Nazis killed 6 million of my “chosen people,” but find it important enough to intervene and turn water into wine to stop some hosts being embarrassed at a wedding in Cana? Why did I seem to be so active in the Middle East for a brief period about 2,000 years ago, but totally absent everywhere else on the planet and for the rest of recorded history? Did I make the Jews or did the Jews make me?

    So, you really think my periodic miracles prove my existence hey? Then why not something inarguable and unambiguous, like a huge crucifix in the sky, or my face on the moon? Why is it always that believers have to construct my miracles out of perfectly explicable natural events?

    This happens every time there is a tragedy or near tragedy of any kind, anywhere in the world and in all cultures. Captain “Sully” Sullenberger pilots a distressed plane to land safely on the Hudson River in New York City with no deaths, and it’s a miracle from God; a young girl is found in India, totally terrorized, but alive after being abducted and ra.ped for a week, and it’s a miracle from my competi.tor Rama (or Vishnu or Shiva) that she is returned to her parents; or a family in Northern Pakistan survives an errant American missile attack, and it’s a miracle from Allah.

    What all these self-serving proclamations of miraculous intervention always ignore is the downside of the incidents. The fact that the passengers and crew of Flight 1549 were terrorized and the plane destroyed, that 11 innocent people are dead in Aurora, that the girl was held for seven days, ra.ped and sod.omized and will be traumatized for the rest of her life, or that a number of innocent civilians were killed by the missile.

    Of course, none of these incidents really are “miracles.” When the totality of facts are taken into account, “miracles” turn out to be nothing more than believers who are desperate for some sign of my existence ignoring the downside of a set of facts, focusing solely on the upside and calling the quarantined “good” a miracle from me or one of the other sky-fairies. A CEO might as well ignore the liability side of his balance sheet and declare it a “miracle” that his company just doubled in value.

    Another annoying habit my “miracles” seem to have is that they always seem to tag along, just behind medical science, like an annoying kid brother who won’t go away. Until the mid nineties, those with AIDS who prayed for a miracle were never granted one. Medical science finds a way to permanently suppress the disease, and all of a sudden I start to perform miracles with AIDS patients. No polio patient ever received a miracle until the Salk vaccine and I routinely ignored cancer patients until chemotherapy and radiation treatments were developed. Suddenly, prayers to me from cancer patients are regularly “answered.”

    Why is it that I still seem deaf to the pleadings of amputees who would like their fingers, arms or legs back, to those who have physically lost eyes or ears, to the horribly burned and to all others who ail from patently visible and currently incurable maladies? Why is it that, at the very same time, I am very receptive to the prayers of those whose condition is uncertain, internal and vulnerable to miraculous claims?

    Take five minutes to make two lists; one of those ailments I will miraculously cure and the other of those I will not. You will quickly find it coincides perfectly with those conditions medical science (or the human body itself) can defeat and those we cannot. Why do you think that is? It is almost as my miracles are created out of medical ambiguity isn’t it?

    No, my human friends. I am afraid I do not exist. I do not read your minds (or “hear your prayers” as you like to call it) and you are not going to achieve immortality (or “eternal life” as you like to call it) no matter how many commandments from Iron Age Palestine you choose to “keep”. Move on and enjoy the few years you have. You were all dead for the last 13,700,000,000 years and it wasn’t that least bit uncomfortable now, was it?

    God

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

    Nice work Jimmy, here’s another

    http://lolgod.blogspot.co.nz/2011/11/satan-is-more-powerful-than-god.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Ryan Sproull (7,153 comments) says:

    Well, this is constructive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Fletch (3,154) Says:
    August 4th, 2012 at 10:02 am

    eszett, one could use the same argument for paedophiles.

    lol, no surprises there from you Fletch.

    Just what is it about the concept of consenting adults that you find so hard to understand?
    It is beyond me why you keep bring up the paedophile argument over and over again. It only proves how dishonest and prejudiced you are in this whole discussion.

    Why, with that argument you could argue against anything.

    If we allow people of different races to marry, we might as well allow paedophiles to marry.
    If we allow people of different hair colour to marry, we might as well allow paedophiles to marry.
    If we allow blowjobs to be legal, we might as well allow paedophilia to be legal.

    Do you see how absurd and nonsensical your argument is? Not only that, you are trying to criminalise and dehumanise homosexuals.

    And you must have that other page that you keep quoting here about the evils of homosexuality handy. You must have posted it about 10 times now, doesn’t help you argument.

    Correlation is not causation. Another concept that you handily ignore. I could whip up a number of stats showing how christian white males at more health risk than other parts of the population and that we should therefore ban christian white males from society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Chuck Bird (4,884 comments) says:

    “And your understanding of democracy is shoddy at best. The vote will be be a conscience vote, based on what our representatives believe is the right thing to do.”

    eszitt, do you remember FPP? There was some justification conscience votes then. All MP represented there constituents. Under MMP only half do. Important legislation like that and Maryan Street’s bill on euthanasia should not be determined by a group of MPs who represent no one.

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

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Chucky, you neither have a good understanding of representative democracy nor of conscience votes.

    There was no more or less justification under FPP. Conscience votes are about the representative conscience and not the constituents. It’s about not having to votes according to party lines.

    And it is nonsense that list MPs don’t represent constituents. They do, they represent the whole of New Zealand. It is just shameful nonsense decrying list MPs.

    The conscience vote is valid, effective and extremely democratic process for such a matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Chuck Bird (4,884 comments) says:

    “Chucky, you neither have a good understanding of representative democracy nor of conscience votes.”

    That from someone who does not know what the anus was designed for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Is that the best argument (If you can call it an argument at all) that you can muster, chucky?

    Just shows how lost and desperate you are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Once again DPF makes a great argument for civil unions, and proceeds to confuse it with marriage.

    Gay people can now express their relationship with one another on absolutely equal terms under NZ law.

    But that isn’t good enough.

    The activists driving this (most of whom are not gay) now want to redefine an exclusive heterosexual tradition, which is one of the only ways heterosexual people can exclusively celebrate their own sexuality.

    It is being stolen from them because the liberal elite have several agendas all wrapped into one, for instance, it is pretty bloody hard to imagine feminists (who hate heterosexual marriage) being to upset over the complete redefinition of an institution they have fought against for decades.

    THAT is what this is really about, nothing more, nothing less, the human rights were settled with civil unions.

    All I can say is that the ‘redefiners’ are damned lucky they had the nutty religious bigots opposing them, it made almost all debate on this irrational and ensured that traditional marriage would be lost forever.

    You can’t add homosexuals to a heterosexual tradition and then suggest you are not completely destroying the institution, it is by definition completely different.

    Nothing was stopping Gay people having their own tradition, but they would rather take mine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Ryan Sproull (7,153 comments) says:

    Nothing was stopping Gay people having their own tradition, but they would rather take mine.

    Wait, do you guys think you own marriage and that gay Kiwis come from a different culture? Is that where all of this silliness is coming from?

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

    DPF your anecdotes and theories on love, sex and marriage are all very well, but how about presenting some facts, research, evidence to support these opinions?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Pete George (23,565 comments) says:

    Marriage has been ‘redefined’ extensively over history. It has been redefined in my lifetime – in fact it has changed significantly between my first and my second marriage.

    There were eight marriage types mentioned in the Bible.

    1. Man + Woman (Nuclear Family) – Genesis 2:24
    2. Man + Wife + Concubines
    3. Man + Woman + Woman’s property
    4. Man + Woman + Woman + Woman… – (Polygany) Genesis 16
    5. Man + Brother’s Widow (Leviterate) – Genesis 38:6-10
    6. Rapist + Victim – Deuteronomy 22:28-29
    7. Soldier + Prisoner of War – Numbers 31:1-18, Deuteronomy 21:11-14
    8. Male Slave + Female Slave – Exodus 21:4

    Details of this and more historical marriage variations – What is Marriage?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Andrei (2,656 comments) says:

    Poor Pete George thinks he is crowing like a rooster when he is a sad little capon clucking like a hen pbuk pbuk pubuuuuk

    Marriage tak s many forms in the bible pbuk pbuk pubuuuuk

    Polygamy pbuk pbuk pubuuuuk

    So two men can marry each other pbuk pbuk pubuuuuk

    Read the bible you pitiful little man it does not condone polygamy it reports it, and with its negative consequences and this in no way makes sodomite marriage make sense in any way whatsoever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Ryan Sproull (7,153 comments) says:

    Personally, I’ve just been swayed by Andrei’s mature and reasoned argumentation.

    Checkmate, Pete.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Pete George (23,565 comments) says:

    Andrei – yes, the Bible reports many forms of marriage type arrangements that were presumably used in ancient times. That makes Colin Craig’s claim that marriage equality would be “changing marriage for how it’s been for thousands of years” meaningless.

    We’ve actually had one form of marriage equality change substantially in my lifetime. Over the last half century marriage has changed from being often seen as a form of ownership of men over women to being an equal partnership.

    It’s not a big change to extend marriage equality to a few more people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Wait, do you guys think you own marriage and that gay Kiwis come from a different culture? Is that where all of this silliness is coming from?

    Ryan is having difficulty understanding sexual orientation vs “culture”.

    The only “silliness” is coming from reality challenged people on both sides of the argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Ryan Sproull (7,153 comments) says:

    Explain what makes marriage more “your” tradition than other New Zealanders’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Pete George (23,565 comments) says:

    Andrei on Whaleoil:

    Over the past forty years marriage has fallen into decline entirely due to the depredations of the left.

    As I mentioned above in that time marriage has changed from a partiarchal ownership arrangement with man ruling woman to an equal partnership.

    Also in the time there has been a major shift from religion being church and priests ruling people’s lives to far more freedom (from tghreats) of personal choice for those who choose to participate in religious organisations.

    Too many people value freedom, choice and relative equality for either to change back to the dark age practices.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Explain what makes marriage more “your” tradition than other New Zealanders’.

    I’m a signed up member.

    Explain why taking ownership of something I value and participate in is a bad thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Ryan Sproull (7,153 comments) says:

    I’m a signed up member.

    Explain why taking ownership of something I value and participate in is a bad thing.

    You believe that, because you yourself are married, you own marriage?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    As I mentioned above in that time marriage has changed from a partiarchal ownership arrangement with man ruling woman to an equal partnership.

    The ideals of marriage were never about “ownership”, not even in the bible, “the two become one” springs to mind, meaning a functioning mutually respectful unit. Male domination of the institution was a construct of society, but the ideals have never changed.

    Also in the time there has been a major shift from religion being church and priests ruling people’s lives to far more freedom (from tghreats) of personal choice for those who choose to participate in religious organisations.

    Too many people value freedom, choice and relative equality for either to change back to the dark age practices.

    Irrelevant.

    Marriage is an institution that holds the highest ideals for a male/female relationship, to end this as the primary value is to end the institution as it currently exists.

    This is about redefinition, it is not about human rights.

    They want it, and they are going to bloody well take it, (aided by ignorant religious arguments from the ‘God hates fags’ crowd).

    Cultural nihilism, that’s all it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Andrei (2,656 comments) says:

    Over the last half century marriage has changed from being often seen as a form of ownership of men over women to being an equal partnership.

    Feminist pap.

    A couple of weeks ago in Colorado cinema, a massacre.

    Three men laid down their lives to protect their women during that event – they used their own bodies to sheild those of their women and took bullets in their backs in the process. Their bodies had to be pulled off their women who survved as a consequence. This is what men do, or are expected to do.

    One sorry individual abandoned his girlfriend and her, not his children and fled the scene, all these people survived but that man is condemned by all it is total SHAME and disgrace. And yet turn that around if he stayed while she fled that would be the normal order of things, no shame for anybody. Comprende?

    Men are supposed to protect women even at the cost of their lives – it is something that goes with manhood, part of the deal.

    Marriage is not ownership of a wife – it is a duty to a woman right up too sacrificing your life for her well being.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    You believe that, because you yourself are married, you own marriage?

    Ahhh Ryan, ever the legalist.

    Perhaps you could try thinking for a bit?

    If you believe that ‘taking ownership’ over something is a bad thing, then you are fundamentally opposed to what makes for cohesive community involvement in anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Ryan Sproull (7,153 comments) says:

    Ahhh Ryan, ever the legalist.

    Perhaps you could try thinking for a bit?

    If you believe that ‘taking ownership’ over something is a bad thing, then you are fundamentally opposed to what makes for cohesive community involvement in anything.

    Yes, I see. It’s just interesting that your argument for who gets to own marriage would work just as well in excluding interracial marriages as it does for excluding same-sex ones. “Well, I’m married here to my same-race wife, and so I’m taking ownership of marriage, as only a married person can, and saying that interracial couples can’t marry – and their voice doesn’t matter, because not being married themselves, they can’t own marriage enough to have a say.”

    Anyway, I can fix it right now: I own marriage just as much as you do, by your own criteria, and I hereby execute the powers vested in me by being married to declare marriage available to all consenting adult couples. And interracial couples, in case you happen to be wanting to close the gate on that one too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Ryan Sproull (7,153 comments) says:

    Gosh, I hope I don’t get kicked out of the exclusive private married-people club for letting in the riff-raff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Ryan Sproull (7,153 comments) says:

    If you believe that ‘taking ownership’ over something is a bad thing, then you are fundamentally opposed to what makes for cohesive community involvement in anything.

    And it’s really cute that you pretended like I said taking ownership was a bad thing, rather than questioning your ownership of a worldwide social phenomenon in the first place.

    RYAN: “What on earth makes you think you own 90% of Tasmania?!”

    SHUNDA: “Hey, if you think property ownership is a bad thing, I don’t know what to tell ya, crazy!”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Ryan Sproull (7,153 comments) says:

    I’ve got to start making dinner, but just quickly, as someone who participates in the English language, I’m taking ownership of it and I decree that no one’s allowed to say “parenthetical” for the rest of today.

    And if you question my ownership of the English language, I’ve got just one thing to say to you: If you believe that ‘taking ownership’ over something is a bad thing, then you are fundamentally opposed to what makes for cohesive community involvement in anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Pete George (23,565 comments) says:

    The ideals of marriage were never about “ownership”, not even in the bible,

    – man could acquire wife’s property including slaves
    – rapist must pay victim’s father 50 shekels of silver for property loss
    – virgin girls who are taken as spoils of war
    – slave owner could assign female slaves to his male slaves

    It has symbolized the transfer of the near absolute ownership and control of a woman from her father to her husband.

    And a strong male over female ownership component in marriage has been prevalent since biblical days until last century New Zealand.

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

    andrei lives in some sort of fantasy world where life’s a game and there are certain roles assigned and that can never be changed.

    From the comfort of his commode, where he has never seen anything more threatening than PZ Myers bashing a nail through a biscuit, he dares to cast judgement on people he doesn’t know, about a scene he has never been in.

    Next, he’ll be telling us the ones who died were all married to the first wives, were virgins until the day after their wedding night and drank from the priest’s chalice on command, whereas the others were all poofs and unworthy to even hold an admission ticket to the movie.

    Who can say how any of us would react until the acid is put upon us? I’ve seen men who talked like andrei go to pieces at the first sign of a threat and those who seemed crushed and defeated by life step up and take command when their city crumbled around them.

    We are all different, and in far more ways than our sexuality.

    And andrei, your Titanic fallacy is just that, a fallacy.

    As the icy waters of the North Atlantic began to flood the Titanic, the men aboard the doomed liner stood aside to let women and children off first.
    Their selfless courage ensured that nearly three quarters of these passengers survived the disaster.
    And yet, contrary to popular perception, such gallantry is the exception and men – including crew – are much more likely to survive maritime disasters.
    To find out if such behaviour is still the norm, Swedish researchers studied 16 sinkings that have occurred since the 1850s involving around 15,000 passengers and crew.
    The Uppsala University team said: ‘By investigating a much larger sample of maritime disasters than has previously been done, we show that the survival rate of women is, on average, only about half that of men.

    (…)

    They added that the survival of women has improved in recent years, possibly because of the rise in feminism and the advent of less restrictive clothing.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2181317/Women-children-Not-likely-Men-likely-survive-maritime-disasters.html#ixzz22Y43WJk0

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    The activists driving this (most of whom are not gay) now want to redefine an exclusive heterosexual tradition, which is one of the only ways heterosexual people can exclusively celebrate their own sexuality.

    Marriage is an institution that holds the highest ideals for a male/female relationship, to end this as the primary value is to end the institution as it currently exists.

    lo, you accuse people of wanting to re-defining marriage, while simply coming up with your own definitions on the fly. Really, have you absolutely no sense of irony?

    Marriage is celebrating heterosexuality??? and
    Marriage an institution that holds the highest ideals for a male/female relationship.

    You just made that shit up to suit your own argument. Talk about re-defining marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. CharlieBrown (1,012 comments) says:

    I’ll state this before I get started – I’m a straight, monogamous Christian and I believe that Gay marriage should be allowed.

    But anyone that believes Gay marriage should be allowed yet believes polygamy should not are freaking hypocrites of the worst kind. The state should have absolutely no right to dictate how peoples private lives and values are run. All these people want to do is forcibly impose their values on the rest of us and are no worse than Collin Craig and his conservative loons.

    Collin Craig believes that marriage is between a man and a women that love each other, DPF believes that marriage is between two people that love each other, polygamists believe that marriage can be between many people that intimately love each other; but who should have the right to say who can marry who? This is all about beliefs and the state should keep the hell out of interfering in beliefs if no-one is getting hurt by them.

    These people that believe that gay marriage should be legal but polygamist marriages shouldn’t are using the same form of logic that the likes of the rulers of Saudi Arabia use. Ok, they don’t believe that polygamists should be executed, but they do believe that they should face the choice of prison or not being polygamists. What farking totaltarian, hypocrites imposing their beliefs on everyone else.

    We as individuals can use our own judgement to believe if marriage is real for gay or polygimous people but we have no ethical right to forcibly stop other people from practising their beliefs. I hope they change the law to allow any adult(s) to marry, as long as celebrants and churches are allowed to make their own choice on who they can marry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Chuck Bird (4,884 comments) says:

    CharlieBrown, I do not agree with your view below but applaud you for being consistent.

    “I hope they change the law to allow anyone of appropriate age to marry, as long as celebrants and churches are allowed to make their own choice on who they can marry.”

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

    ‘But anyone that believes Gay marriage should be allowed yet believes polygamy should not are freaking hypocrites of the worst kind. The state should have absolutely no right to dictate how peoples private lives and values are run. All these people want to do is forcibly impose their values on the rest of us and are no worse than Collin Craig and his conservative loons.’

    Well said. Repeal the Marriage Act. Get the government out of regulating personal relationships altogether.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Pete George (23,565 comments) says:

    There’s a significant difference between gay marriage and polygamy.

    Gay marriage has close to majority support amongst MPs – marriageequality.co.nz currently has Yes at 59 and Abstain on 8, and only 14 confirmed No.

    Polls also suggest popular support for marriage equality.

    I haven’t seen any polls for polygamy, but I suspect that it would be poorly supported generally and I’d be surprised if anyone even attemtped to introuduce a bill on it, and surprised if MPs came anywhere close to approving.

    So it’s comparing something that’s a minor change with strong support to something that would be a major change and has not been proposed.

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

    mikenmild, the government doesn’t regulate personal relationships now.

    It does provide a service for registering and enforcing contracts, and marriage is a contract. The government has no say in, nor does it care, who you live with outside a marriage situation. You can, if you wish, fuck your mother in law, but you can’t marry her.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Andrei (2,656 comments) says:

    You full of bullshit Pete George.

    Sodomite marriage is not a minor change – it is a radical change, one far more radical then polygamy would ever be.

    And as for “polls suggesting support” that is the oldest trick in the social engineers playbook trying to convince people with common sense that they are out of step with the majority- when they are not.

    That and silencing critics.

    In truth this is an agenda spawned in Hell by the prince of deceit and deceit is what is being used to foist this abomination on this country.

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

    Andrei (1,345) Says:
    August 4th, 2012 at 5:48 pm

    In truth this is an agenda spawned in Hell by the prince of deceit and deceit is what is being used to foist this abomination on this country.

    Well then Andrei, you better go paint some lamb’s blood on your door so that the Holy Spirit doesn’t come by tonight and kill your babies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Ah, Andrei’s comments, always so reasonable and rational, always a pleasure.

    “radical change”
    “agenda spawned in Hell by the prince of deceit”

    Classic!

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

    Yes Luke, it is conractual in nature, but how many such “contracts” include warranties that neither party will marry another? Why does the state involve itself in criminalising bigamy? It’s understandable (although not necessarily appropriate) that the state might intervene in this way in the absence of rules around relationship property and social support mechanisms but less so in a society where the practice of marriage has less sanctity and divorce is so readily available. And that’s not to suggest I’m a fan of arguments based on the notion that “the horse has bolted” so why worry/too late to stop the rot. But in point of principle, why should the state intervene and discriminate between various types of relationships or criminalise non-violent behaviour.

    BTW, Colin Craig is right. Homosexuality is learned behaviour and I lay the blame faily and squarely at the hands and other appendages of Catholic priests.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. CharlieBrown (1,012 comments) says:

    Pete George – It doesn’t matter who supports it, the german people once supported hitler, the Americans once supported slavery, then segregation, it is still a case of the government enforcing its own laws into peoples private lives. In alot of muslim countries, the majority of people believe gay people should be stoned to death, it doesn’t make it right.

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

    Great post from Ryan’s blog:

    I was opposed to the Civil Union Bill, though not as much as I was opposed to its opposition. It obviously didn’t go far enough in removing unequal treatment by the law of New Zealanders on the basis of their sexuality. Opponents argued, among other things, that civil unions would pave the way for gay marriage – which, of course, it did. It’s frustrating that such incrementalism was necessary.

    A quick glance at Kiwiblog provides a snapshot of the views of opponents of marriage equality. I was going to say that the snapshot was of caricatured exaggerations of the average opponent’s views, but sadly I don’t think I quite believe that. I pessimistically think that the kinds of things said there do represent the way that many New Zealanders think.

    Marriage has always been between one man and one woman.
    Gay Kiwis already have civil unions – what are they complaining about?
    Terrible things happen to kids raised by gay couples.
    Celebrants will be forced to act against their religious beliefs by performing gay marriages.
    What’s next? Polygamy?

    Underlying the majority of these views, often (but not always) explicitly, is a belief in Christian values and a desire for those values to be imposed on everyone via the machinery of the state – or at least to prevent a perceived negation of those values being imposed on everyone via the machinery of the state. NZ Conservative makes it explicit:

    One of the problems we have in the West right now is that we think we can define our own reality. We say, marriage is no longer between a man and a woman – it is between two people of either sex, and we think we can make it so. Our Post Christian nationas have abolished God and seek to act in His place.

    Also noting: “Marriage is not marriage unless it is made up of a man and a woman, so two men or two women could never marry each other, because then it’s not marriage.”

    In my experience, that last bit is reflective of a new trend emerging in opponents of marriage equality. What used to be “don’t do it!” has become “you can’t do it”. You can’t do it, you see, because marriage is between a man and a woman no matter what the Government says, so you can have your piece of paper and pretend you’re married, but you’re not really.

    It feels to me that this trend comes from a sense of inevitability about marriage equality. A sort of emotional self-inoculation in the face of what’s coming.

    What I find interesting about it is the double-thinking required to keep it going. On one hand, the state shouldn’t redefine marriage. On the other hand, the state has no power to redefine marriage. Of course, not everyone holds the two thoughts in their head at the same time, but I like that opposition is coming from two such different and contradictory bases.

    Finally, it’s nice to see Family First showing a little reasoned argument. They’re calling for political parties to declare where they stand on polygamous marriages. Some may scoff, but really, if there’s no tax incentive and all parties are consenting adults, it’s a logical extension of the move towards liberty and equality behind gay marriage. Most of the more compelling arguments for one apply the other.

    And Family First realise this, in a moment of rare lucidity, and also know that while political parties may feel comfortable championing gay rights, they may not be so comfortable about declaring a pro-polygamy stance. Clever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. wreck1080 (3,917 comments) says:

    I don’t think people generally choose to be homosexual — it must be ‘built-in’.

    Also, as a heterosexual I think gay sex is disgusting (but I hold no animosity to those who do this, people can do what they like as long as they don’t hurt others in doing so). No way a person would choose gay sex unless it were in-built.

    I wonder if homosexuals would welcome a pill that would change them into heterosexuals — I think they would, a heterosexual life is so much better (you can have a family, don’t get bashed by gay haters, etc) .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Pete George (23,565 comments) says:

    I wonder if homosexuals would welcome a pill that would change them into heterosexuals — I think they would, a heterosexual life is so much better (you can have a family, don’t get bashed by gay haters, etc) .

    Wouldn’t a pill that stops hating and bashing be a better idea?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    I wonder if homosexuals would welcome a pill that would change them into heterosexuals — I think they would, a heterosexual life is so much better (you can have a family, don’t get bashed by gay haters, etc) .

    lol, I wonder if such a pill existed would heterosexuals take it to become gay?

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

    Wouldn’t a pill that stops hating and bashing be a better idea?

    There is already a pill that does that, it produces

    A general and subjective alteration in consciousness
    A strong sense of inner peace and self-acceptance
    Diminished aggression, hostility, and jealousy
    Diminished fear, anxiety, and insecurity
    Extreme mood lift with accompanying euphoria
    Feelings of empathy, compassion, and forgiveness toward others
    Feelings of intimacy and even love for others
    Improved self-confidence
    The ability to discuss normally anxiety-provoking topics with marked ease
    An intensification of all of the bodily senses (hearing, touch, smell, vision, taste)
    Substantial enhancement of the appreciation of music quality
    Mild psychedelia, consisting of mental imagery and auditory and visual distortions
    Stimulation, arousal, and hyperactivity (e.g., many users get an “uncontrollable urge to dance” while under the influence)
    Increased energy and endurance
    Increased alertness, awareness, and wakefulness
    Increased desire, drive, and motivation
    Analgesia or decreased pain sensitivity

    Sounds pretty cool to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Yes, I see. It’s just interesting that your argument for who gets to own marriage would work just as well in excluding interracial marriages as it does for excluding same-sex ones. “Well, I’m married here to my same-race wife, and so I’m taking ownership of marriage, as only a married person can, and saying that interracial couples can’t marry – and their voice doesn’t matter, because not being married themselves, they can’t own marriage enough to have a say.”

    I see.

    You sir are clutching at straws.

    But, your rapid fire posts indicate I have struck a nerve and that is no bad thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Marriage is celebrating heterosexuality??? and
    Marriage an institution that holds the highest ideals for a male/female relationship.

    You just made that shit up to suit your own argument. Talk about re-defining marriage.

    Nope, that isn’t a redefinition, it’s called reality.

    Your hostility is due to the strength of this argument and your inability to come up with a reasonable counter argument.

    But don’t worry, the ‘God hates fags’ crowd will continue their nonsensical argument thus ensuring the legislation passes.

    Just don’t ever think this was based on any thing but a petty clash between extremists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    - man could acquire wife’s property including slaves
    – rapist must pay victim’s father 50 shekels of silver for property loss
    – virgin girls who are taken as spoils of war
    – slave owner could assign female slaves to his male slaves

    Pete, I have no desire to argue this from a religious perspective, it simply isn’t necessary, however, you would do well to understand that the bible recorded these things, but doesn’t necessarily endorse these things any more than the encyclopedia Britannica endorses Nazi Germany or global thermonuclear war.

    It has symbolized the transfer of the near absolute ownership and control of a woman from her father to her husband.

    And a strong male over female ownership component in marriage has been prevalent since biblical days until last century New Zealand.

    Sure, that scenario existed/exists, but it isn’t anything but a cultural construct based on underlying male chauvinism, it also isn’t any where near as common as you suppose. What do you think Pete? are men chauvinists because of the institution of marriage or because they are a different sex? think about it.

    Just because high ideals are seldom met doesn’t mean those ideals never existed.

    Redefining marriage is all about lowering the bar.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    Redefining marriage is all about lowering the bar.

    Go on then, how is it lowering the bar?

    It seems strange to me that the existence of married gay couples in our country would somehow devalue my marriage. I’d be interested to know how that works…?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Gee, am I the only one noticing all those angry feminists drooling in the side lines over this issue?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    Who’s angry? I’m just waiting for you to answer a simple question…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    And while you’re typing… is that “Lowering the bar” in the sense that straight people are just better than gay people, who should not be admitted to the club?

    (Because reading a lot of the Xtian / conservative people’s comments on here, that’s certainly the attitude that comes through… )

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Nope, that isn’t a redefinition, it’s called reality.

    Your hostility is due to the strength of this argument and your inability to come up with a reasonable counter argument.

    lol, don’t flatter yourself, I am merely laughing at the “strength” of your argument. And your perception of “reality”

    You are the one who said the definition is marriage the “the celebration of heterosexuality”.
    I am saying you just made that up and thereby putting on your definition of marriage to exclude homosexuals.

    All you can muster is “but it’s true, because I say it’s true and you questioning it makes it true”.

    Ah, the “strength” of such arguments is flabbergasting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    eszett

    I see you as no different to the Christian bigots, you appear just as confused and just as ignorant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Steve Parkes (24 comments) says:

    eszett, one could use the same argument for paedophiles.

    I suppose. If paedophiles only wanted to have sex with consenting adults.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Ryan Sproull (7,153 comments) says:

    I see.

    You sir are clutching at straws.

    But, your rapid fire posts indicate I have struck a nerve and that is no bad thing.

    Naw, just kept thinking of points to make, and I somehow missed your “explain how taking ownership is a bad thing” dodge the first time round.

    You don’t own marriage, Shunda. Being married doesn’t give you ownership over it, any more than being married gives me ownership of it. Neither you nor I can “take ownership” of marriage. There’s no “them” taking “your” institution. The gay couples who want to get married want to be equally recognised as participating in an institution from their culture: Kiwi culture. Possibly the same place you learned of it.

    It’s a legal/state-sanctioned arrangement, and it’s not the state’s place to discriminate on the basis of religious values.

    I’d rather the state had no part in it whatsoever, but while it does it should do so equally.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Steve Parkes (24 comments) says:

    Reid, you are adorably crazy, buddy.

    We’re all victims eszett. You haven’t understood a word that the opposition has said, have you.
    All humans depend on procreation.
    All societies use the family as the central procreation unit.

    See, bigots usually like to emphasise how small a portion of society are really gay – about 1% to 2% is usually all they’ll accept as a realistic figure (see Scott’s comment much earlier on for an example). And also apparently most gays don’t want marriage anyway – if you don’t believe me just ask Fletch.

    So basically, even though only a minority of this very small section of society will take up the option of marriage, they will still somehow ruin marriage for ALL the straights, and then destroy civilisation as we know it. Hilarious theory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Matthew Flannagan (76 comments) says:

    Chiz, Right, I was sloppy in my wording, that’s a fair call David said in his submission homosexuality was innate. I assumed he meant to allude to the popular genetic predisposition claim.

    However I am not sure pointing this out that really deals with my point for two reasons. First, if homosexuality being genetically based is a form of innateness, then the existence of GSA shows that attraction to siblings and parents can also be innate in the sense of being based on both genetics and environmental factors.

    Second, it does not address my point that David made several arguments in his submission and if any one of them implies that marriage should be redefined to include incestous or polygamous unions then he is commited to that position. The fact other arguments don’t commit him is irrelevant.

    So my point stands is David’s own arguments, many of them do commit him to supporting incestuous and polygamous unions, and his arguments are not atypical. So it’s really not accurate to write as though defenders of same sex marriage are not commited to this conclusion. I agree many don’t support that conclusion but that only shows there position is incoherent.

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