Poll breakdown on same sex marriage

August 7th, 2012 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

Colmar Brunton have kindly published the demographic breakdown of their May poll on . Overall New Zealanders were 2:1 in favour with 63% supporting and 31% against. But the demographic breakdowns are fascinating:

  • Amongst under 35s, it is over 4:1 in favour or 76% to 18%
  • Even amongst 35 to 54 year olds, 66% are in favour
  • This suggests that combined, around 70% of people aged under 55 are in favour of allowing same sex couples to marry. This is why I believe it is absolutely inevitable
  • Women support same sex marriage by around 2.5:1 or 69% to 26% – and women are key swing voters
  • The more someone earns, the more likely they are to support same sex marriage – those earning $70,000 or more are almost 2.5:1 in favour
  • Those who identify with a religion are split evenly on the issue, while those who do not are around 3.5:1 in favour being 75% to 21%
  • Rural and small town respondents are in favour by 59% to 33% – just slightly less than the overall average of 63% to 31%.

Very fascinating results. They do not provide the breakdown for combined gender and age but looking at this I’d estimate that women aged under 55 are around 80% in favour. No demographic is strongly against with those aged over 55 being only 48% opposed – a plurality margin of just 2%.

Tags: ,

211 Responses to “Poll breakdown on same sex marriage”

  1. iMP (2,333 comments) says:

    This is great stuff DPF. I’m gonna stick my neck out and say, that I think the debate is turning (viz Irish Daily News and St Louis Missouri Despatch articles, Dom Post editorial notwthstanding); and that MPs will vote for First Reading but the bill will not pass after we’ve had some debate.

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

    These numbers are all pretty comprehensive. I don’t see the legislation being voted down by parliament, especially now that JK has come out in support

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. eszett (2,357 comments) says:

    Hamilton has they highest approval rate with 72% by far. Hamilton????!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. iMP (2,333 comments) says:

    There will be solid debate on both sides, but in the end I think the arguments AGIN will neutralise PRO and in MPs minds a close race will not be sufficient justification for changing what marriage has been for centuries.

    That’s how I think it will roll.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,820 comments) says:

    So no problem putting the issue to referendum rather than polical elites deciding it among themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. iMP (2,333 comments) says:

    What was the poll number? The Campbell Live p[oll of several thousand had a majority against same-sex by a margin of about 10%.

    Maybe the Mps will kick for touch and go with a national referendum as an SOP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. thedavincimode (6,589 comments) says:

    … sob … sob …

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

    Unscientific Campbell Live poll versus a scientific Colmar Brunton poll? I know which one I’ll be putting most faith in

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. eszett (2,357 comments) says:

    OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,572) Says:
    August 7th, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    So no problem putting the issue to referendum rather than polical elites deciding it among themselves.

    Absolutely not. Feel free to put your money where your mouth is and start a CIR if you feel that strongly about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. James Stephenson (2,085 comments) says:

    Yeah, ‘cos we’ve got a really good track record of politicians taking notice of the results of CIRs…

    Oh yeah, and Mighty, people answer differently on these types of issues when a person asks and when they get to respond anonymously.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Ryan Sproull (7,059 comments) says:

    Hrm. I feel weirdly proud of my fellow Kiwis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (774 comments) says:

    Campbell Live will be a pay to vote style.
    Therefore bias toward those who feel strong enough about the subject that they are willing to pay to have their vote counted

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. RRM (9,633 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull (5,084) Says:
    August 7th, 2012 at 12:29 pm

    Hrm. I feel weirdly proud of my fellow Kiwis.

    +1, hear hear.

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

    So there goes one of Colin Craig’s arguments that he has the support of the majority of New Zealanders when he opposes marriage equality. Clearly he does not.

    As to his saying homosexuality is a choice; who on earth would choose homosexuality!? Given the amount of animosity gay people are exposed to, even now, his logic is self-defeating.

    Colin Craig is not the anti-marriage equality group’s greatest advocate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    Ask someone if they’re happy for their son to ‘marry’ a bloke and adopt children and I suspect the results would be different. Still, 31% of us have the temerity to not be washed down the muddy liberal creek, and hold an opinion on this issue despite being slandered as bigoted extremists and haters. Like Ryan and RRM, I am proud of my fellow kiwis.

    [DPF: I was chatting today to a mum whose five year old likes dressing up in women's clothes, and could well turn our gay. She loves him unconditionally and will do regardless of whether this is just a fad, or is who he is and he turns outs trans. She is hetero as is her husband, and I think it is very coold that she doesn't want her kid to think there is something "wrong" with him]

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

    Yeah, If the poll was asking if people would be happy for their son to marry another guy, the results would be even more in favour of marriage equality.

    Wouldn’t you want them to be happy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Ryan Sproull (7,059 comments) says:

    Yeah, I think anyone who has a gay son is unlikely to change their answer on that question, KrazyKiwi, whichever their answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. RRM (9,633 comments) says:

    If my son likes the cock when he grows up, I’d rather he was allowed to marry his partner than not allowed to…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. kowtow (7,914 comments) says:

    …..women are key swing voters”

    Equality,nuff said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. kowtow (7,914 comments) says:

    rrm

    If some like it up the bum that’s fine,doesn’t mean we need another act of parliament. That’s already been sorted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. IHStewart (388 comments) says:

    Meanwhile in Uganda http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/08/2012851807445585.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Pete George (23,278 comments) says:

    Those who identify with a religion are split evenly on the issue…

    This is as important and interesting as any of the other breakdowns. We keep hearing from a few strong voices “who identify with a religion” and I don’t doubt their strong feelings, but this isn’t a Christian V. non-Christian debate, nor theist v. atheist.

    It seems to indicate the tide of sexuality tolerance has turned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Paulus (2,554 comments) says:

    Boring !!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Longknives (4,678 comments) says:

    Who honestly cares?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. dime (9,651 comments) says:

    my god! make it stop!

    DPF youre as bad as that obama loving whaleoil at the moment

    [DPF: If stuff is newsworthy I report it. Same sex marriage is a big issue. I don't plan to blog it to a set frequency, but will when there is stuff when it is relevant. If you don't like the issue, then just don't read it]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. eszett (2,357 comments) says:

    Paulus (1,102) Says:
    August 7th, 2012 at 1:29 pm

    Boring !!!!!

    Yep, that’s the point we need to get to where the topic of gay marriage is as boring as the topic of hetero marriage

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. dime (9,651 comments) says:

    eszet – it already is. the only ones against are the ones that hate other stuff like metal, 3somes etc the ones that hate gingas, fat people ,baldys etc

    its so goddam boring.

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

    Pete George (14,105) Says:
    August 7th, 2012 at 1:29 pm

    “Those who identify with a religion are split evenly on the issue…”

    “This is as important and interesting as any of the other breakdowns. We keep hearing from a few strong voices “who identify with a religion” and I don’t doubt their strong feelings, but this isn’t a Christian V. non-Christian debate, nor theist v. atheist.”

    Most Christian denominations would still claim marriage is one man and one woman. Interesting to see the people are moving on even when the institutions and their leaders are not.

    Not boring. Rather hopeful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Griff (6,989 comments) says:

    Women support same sex marriage by around 69%
    BUM

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Andrei (2,531 comments) says:

    You know we keep being told that we “support” homosexual marriage both here and in the USA.

    But when people go to the ballot box they have always overwhelmingly rejected it.

    And Pete George you do not have to go far in this country to find heretical churches with a woman in vestments playing church, often a lesbian.

    The Church’s teaching is clear and simple a man marries a woman and they become “one flesh” and are supposed to raise children which is what marriage is all about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Unimatrix.Zero (14 comments) says:

    “They do not provide the breakdown for combined gender and age but looking at this I’d estimate that women aged under 55 are around 80% in favour.”

    Some pretty good guesstimation right there DPF ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Tautaioleua (291 comments) says:

    Anne Neville,

    Most Christian denominations used to claim that women were biblically inferior to men, and that their place in society was in the kitchen.

    But that didn’t stop the Christian Temperance Union and Katherine Sheppard, now did it?

    Christians have been at the forefront of “equality” from the beginning. Most unions today can trace origin in one form or another to the church or Christian associations. The Labour Party’s beginnings were by and large religious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Ryan Sproull (7,059 comments) says:

    The Church’s teaching is clear and simple a man marries a woman and they become “one flesh” and are supposed to raise children which is what marriage is all about.

    Yes, and the Mosque’s teaching is clear and simple that you’re not allowed to eat pork.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Longknives (4,678 comments) says:

    Mmmmm Pork….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Pete George (23,278 comments) says:

    Tautaioleua – good point.

    While some churches and some Christians are the often biggest anti-social change voices, a lot of social progress has been driven by more enlightened faces of Christendom.

    While some genuinely think that the marriage equality bill challenges a fundamental of their religious beliefs others obviously see it different.

    Is this a contrast between the more Bible-Based-christians compared to the how-would-Christ-see-it-ians?

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

    And that if you commit adultary, you should be stoned.

    I don’t engage with people like that because they are taking the most convenient views of marriage and throwing stones at everyone else.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. eszett (2,357 comments) says:

    The Church’s teaching is clear and simple a man marries a woman and they become “one flesh” and are supposed to raise children which is what marriage is all about.

    The Church’s teachings are not really relevant, and then only for those who choose that they are.

    Also no reason why to guys or two girls cannot become “one flesh” (whatever that may mean anyway) and raise children.

    heretical churches

    Another Andrei classic!
    Are they blasphemous as well? Or only heretical?
    And is your church also heretical from their point of view?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Andrei (2,531 comments) says:

    You are brain dead Ryan Sproull – if raising children isn’t the fundamental thing most adults do your society dies out.

    There is no way over, under or around this

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Ryan Sproull (7,059 comments) says:

    You are brain dead Ryan Sproull – if raising children isn’t the fundamental thing most adults do your society dies out.

    There is no way over, under or around this

    And now there will be even more adult couples raising children. Yay!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. kowtow (7,914 comments) says:

    Political equality is one thing but I agree with Andrei on those churches that insist in overturning church tradition and appointing women to what were exclusively male positions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Pete George (23,278 comments) says:

    if raising children isn’t the fundamental thing most adults do your society dies out.

    The world population has doubled over the past fifty years. Lack of marital procreation does not seem to be leading to a demise of society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Redbaiter (7,981 comments) says:

    “Lack of marital procreation does not seem to be leading to a demise of society.”

    More of the usual utter utter crap from one of the blogosphere’s biggest misrepresenters.

    In fact many societies are suffering from low birth rates, and they’re mainly in western democracies that are populated by brainwashed liberals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Pete George (23,278 comments) says:

    Andrei: “…you do not have to go far in this country to find heretical churches with a woman in vestments playing church, often a lesbian.”

    kowtow: “I agree with Andrei on those churches that insist in overturning church tradition and appointing women to what were exclusively male positions.”

    Those pesky women who won’t just bow their heads and spread their legs for men. If they hadn’t been given the vote and allowed to own things, and had taken their marital rape and violent discipline silently like obedient inferiors, the world would not be hurtling to hell in a handbasket.

    (The ones who think they’re already in hell are the ex patriarchal power freaks).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Andrei (2,531 comments) says:

    And now there will be even more adult couples raising children. Yay!

    Like I asaid Ryan Sproull you are braindead.

    FYI – children are not found in the cabbage patch and nor does the stork bring them.

    They are conceived by a sexual union between one man and one woman.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. KiwiGreg (3,211 comments) says:

    @ Andrei well actually by a sperm and an egg, the specific man and woman haven’t been required for some time now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Ryan Sproull (7,059 comments) says:

    Like I asaid Ryan Sproull you are braindead.

    FYI – children are not found in the cabbage patch and nor does the stork bring them.

    They are conceived by a sexual union between one man and one woman.

    Yes, but some couples, like same-sex couples and infertile heterosexual couples, can’t conceive. So they can adopt, giving a child that otherwise would not have one a loving home.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Pete George (23,278 comments) says:

    More of the usual utter utter crap from one of the blogosphere’s biggest misrepresenters.

    In fact many societies are suffering from low birth rates…

    A classic RB misrepresenter own goal.

    I didn’t say anything about birth rates, I said population increases. Where birth rates are down death rates are also down.

    It’s just as well many countries have significantly reduced birth rates, otherwise the population increase would be even worse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. kowtow (7,914 comments) says:

    pg

    The usual too many people in the world lark. Too many in the third world ,yes. Not enough in the west. And our pollies happy to import plenty to destroy our traditions,jobs and standard of living.

    There are arguments to be made that the extension of the franchise has led to a cheapning and corruption of the electorate. Politicians cravnly appealing for that all important thicko, selfish vote. But then you’d know about that .

    Your langauage is also un necessarily crude. You are not a gentleman. You should try to make your points without desending so quikly into the sewer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Andrei (2,531 comments) says:

    FFS Pete George must you spout feminist pap all the time.

    To be sure some men and women have pathological relationships and this has always been true and the last forty years of social engineering has not changed that one iota, actually it has made it worse and made it far harder for people to establish mutually beneficial, fruitful, life long relationships.

    Men and women are made differently, physically, emotionally, intellectually and spiritually and these differences are designed to complement one another not to be in competition.

    And when a man is joined to a woman miracles occur – new life!!!!!

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

    Tautaioleua, I’m agreeing with you. I think there are many people of faith who are progressive and inclusive because that’s what they believe their faith teaches. And yes, they have been involved in social change in good ways historically.

    My point is that the official views of the churches are not as evolved as the views of their members.

    I find the poll results hopeful because it indicates that half of the people associated with a religious group support marriage equality. But you wouldn’t know that from the religious leaders’ pronouncements (except for those heretical churches with lesbian clergy, of course :-) )

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. kowtow (7,914 comments) says:

    Anne N

    It goes to show how far the collapse in traditional beliefs hav e gone. And while you are obviously entitled to your opinions, those 2 little words you use ,progressive and inclusive says it all. Oh dear.

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

    1,005 people in that Colmar Brunton poll, that counts for nothing.

    There is already over 18,000 signatures on the ProtectMarriage.org.nz website petition.

    Yes, New Zealand wants to be heard on this, via a binding referendum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. dime (9,651 comments) says:

    “And when a man is joined to a woman miracles occur – new life!!!!!”

    Yea, Dimes account balance drops by 180 bucks. a real f*cking miracle

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Pete George (23,278 comments) says:

    Dick, signatures on an online petition don’t count for anything when it comes to getting a Citizens Initiated Referendum.

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

    I also think a binding referendum is the way to handle such a constitutional matter involving societal relationships.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    Yeah, I think anyone who has a gay son is unlikely to change their answer on that question, KrazyKiwi, whichever their answer.

    I agree. My point is that polling probably includes plenty of people who have no dog in the hunt, and with near certain vitriolic smears on offer, choose to capitulate and vote with the liberal agenda. Again, I’m proud of the 31% kiwi’s who are prepared to hold their views despite these attacks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Ryan Sproull (7,059 comments) says:

    I agree. My point is that polling probably includes plenty of people who have no dog in the hunt, and with near certain vitriolic smears on offer

    I don’t know, all the names I’ve been called here on Kiwiblog for being in favour of gay marriage haven’t put me off stating my opinion.

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

    Yes Dick, Signatory #10 on that petition is named Donald Duck.

    Riiiigh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    boredboy – You’re probably right. It’s a common tactic to attempt to discredit petitions. Seems to be favoured by liberals and lefties

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. KiwiGreg (3,211 comments) says:

    LOL also get fukt, margaret thatcher and penis itcher all seem to be opposed

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

    Just quickly, here are some more names i found:

    Richard Simmons
    im gay
    Jesus Christ
    Boner Honkfart
    Ned Flanders
    Maggie Simpson
    Donald Duck (x2)

    and

    Dave Douche

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Griff (6,989 comments) says:

    The longer this debate goes on the more hypocritical, misogynous, intolerant and stupid the Christians look
    So in some ways its a good thing :lol:
    If bJesus was alive today there would be a verse that says…. fuck you Xians are a load of wankers

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

    KK perhaps it also hilights how rubbish those petitions are and that signatories could be just about anyone, including someone who just sits at their computer inventing names.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. kowtow (7,914 comments) says:

    Instructive how people who claim to be interested in freedom and rights are prepared to sabotage /make fun of the same processes.

    Free speech for me but not for thee.

    There are other issues around the so called struggle for equality.Which of course is not what this is actually about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Andrei,

    Men and women are made differently, physically, emotionally, intellectually and spiritually and these differences are designed to complement one another not to be in competition.

    Men are also made differently to other men. Not all men are alike and there is as much variation physically, emotionally, intellectually and spiritually between men as there is between men and women.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    Those trying to deface/discredit the petition would do better to start one of their own. And Family First should have had email verification switched on – pretty stupid to have an open, non-authenticated petition running for an obviously contentious topic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. kowtow (7,914 comments) says:

    griff irony alert…..” intolerant” then fuck you Christians are wankers.

    But then griff has never displayed even the slightest signs of moderation.Go for broke,why dontcha.

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

    lol: Amanda Huginkiss

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

    KK we don’t need a petition. There is a bill before the house along with scientific and verifiable polls showing 2:1 support in our favour. Unlike this ‘Mickey Mouse’ petition.

    You’re right it was pretty stupid to not have email verification switched on. Pretty stupid also for Colin Craig to say being gay is a choice and that he has the support of the majority of New Zealanders.

    It’s just been a disaster, hasn’t it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    boredboy – so just be be clear, do you support or condem defacing the Protect Marriage petition?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Griff (6,989 comments) says:

    The intolerant crap being published on here in the name of Christ goes directly against his teachings
    You jesus freaks don’t need me to quote his teachings at you
    Hence he would say something and as my statement was correct as to modern vernacular it would be that or something very similar

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. iMP (2,333 comments) says:

    Liberal Thinking on same-sex marriage:

    18,000 signature petition against = “Mickey Mouse”
    1000 phone poll for = scientific truth.

    Ya gotta love the twisting and distorting by the Lib. mentality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (774 comments) says:

    “1,005 people in that Colmar Brunton poll, that counts for nothing. ”
    I cant be bothered explaining margin of errors to you so let me just say………. FAIL!

    here you go
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error

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

    krazykiwi (8,281) Says:
    August 7th, 2012 at 3:04 pm

    Yeah, I think anyone who has a gay son is unlikely to change their answer on that question, KrazyKiwi, whichever their answer.

    I agree. My point is that polling probably includes plenty of people who have no dog in the hunt, and with near certain vitriolic smears on offer, choose to capitulate and vote with the liberal agenda. Again, I’m proud of the 31% kiwi’s who are prepared to hold their views despite these attacks.

    Do you mind me asking you how old you are? I would be interested to ask you again in 10 years if you’re still here on Kiwiblog whether you still hold the same views you hold today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. KiwiGreg (3,211 comments) says:

    @ iMP I dont really care if its 1,000,000 people against. I dont really see this as a popularity contest (anymore than if more than half the population were in favour of communism).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (774 comments) says:

    “18,000 signature petition against = “Mickey Mouse”
    1000 phone poll for = scientific truth.”

    one is a random sample collected to estimate the population within a certain margin of error
    they other is self-selected

    I mean seriously, what dont you understand about sampling and bias?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. kowtow (7,914 comments) says:

    I’m a bit worried by griff

    He talks about Jesus freaks disparagingly but now he claims to be channelling Jesus.Looney bins used to full of people like him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    Jimmy – I don’t mind you asking but I’m not telling :)
    Very happy to answer the same question in 10 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Chuck Bird (4,748 comments) says:

    “Dick, signatures on an online petition don’t count for anything when it comes to getting a Citizens Initiated Referendum.”

    Pete we do not need signatures for a referendum only a Citizens Initiated Referendum. I am hopeful there might be a principled National MP prepared to move an amendment so this issue must go to a binding referendum instead of have legislation determined by opinion poll. Allowing this matter to be decided by a conscience vote is about as democratic as a militant union voting by a show of hands. If MPs had a secret vote on this issue their would be a different result than with a show of hands. They are scared of the label homophobe.

    Maybe DPF could help me out by naming a principled National MP with a little courage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    Maybe DPF could help me out by naming a principled National MP with a little courage.

    Oh that’s cruel!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Chuck Bird (4,748 comments) says:

    “And Family First should have had email verification switched on – pretty stupid to have an open, non-authenticated petition running for an obviously contentious topic.”

    KK, They have but that does not stop some idiot with time to spare from inventing a hotmail or gmail address just for this purpose. It should also noted that many signatures are husband and wife using the same email address. As far as I know they just count as one. This should make up for these childish fools.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. RRM (9,633 comments) says:

    They are scared of the label homophobe.

    Good. They should be.

    As they should be afraid of other labels e.g. “Anti-semite”…

    Being homophobic is a bad thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    iMP,

    iMP (652) Says:
    August 7th, 2012 at 3:44 pm

    Liberal Thinking on same-sex marriage:

    18,000 signature petition against = “Mickey Mouse”
    1000 phone poll for = scientific truth.

    Ya gotta love the twisting and distorting by the Lib. mentality.

    lol. Stop embarrassing yourself.

    http://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/wk4/lecture/case1.html

    “The presidential election of 1936 pitted Alfred Landon, the Republican governor of Kansas, against the incumbent President, Franklin D. Roosevelt. The year 1936 marked the end of the Great Depression, and economic issues such as unemployment and government spending were the dominant themes of the campaign. The Literary Digest was one of the most respected magazines of the time and had a history of accurately predicting the winners of presidential elections that dated back to 1916. For the 1936 election, the Literary Digest prediction was that Landon would get 57% of the vote against Roosevelt’s 43% (these are the statistics that the poll measured). The actual results of the election were 62% for Roosevelt against 38% for Landon (these were the parameters the poll was trying to measure). The sampling error in the Literary Digest poll was a whopping 19%, the largest ever in a major public opinion poll. Practically all of the sampling error was the result of sample bias.

    The irony of the situation was that the Literary Digest poll was also one of the largest and most expensive polls ever conducted, with a sample size of around 2.4 million people! At the same time the Literary Digest was making its fateful mistake, George Gallup was able to predict a victory for Roosevelt using a much smaller sample of about 50,000 people.

    This illustrates the fact that bad sampling methods cannot be cured by increasing the size of the sample, which in fact just compounds the mistakes. The critical issue in sampling is not sample size but how best to reduce sample bias. There are many different ways that bias can creep into the sample selection process. Two of the most common occurred in the case of the Literary Digest poll.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. kowtow (7,914 comments) says:

    The world according to RRM……now that’s abad thing. Telling people what and how they should think.Bad,bad,bad.

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

    Kk I think the petition is a joke much like the anti_homosexual law reform petition. I wasn’t around then but I read that several boxes of petitions had to be thrown out as they were duplicates.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. eszett (2,357 comments) says:

    lol, Chucky, now you want a secret vote?
    How democratic is that when you don’t know how your MP voted? How do you plan on holding him or her accountable?

    But I have always maintained that you don’t really understand how democracy works.
    Even Rodney explained to you why a referendum is uncalled for.

    The law is not decided by opinion poll. The law is decided by our representatives.

    You can have your say, by all means, have your say. The protect marriage website has your MP listed, do contact him/her. That’s what I did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    RRM – That old chestnut. Yes, last week I didn’t give one of my kids something they wanted, so I’m obviously a hater of children. Next you’ll be suggesting that my saying that it’s not right for someine to marry the eiffel tower makes me a franco-hater.

    You obviously think it’s ok to attack and smear someone personally for the views they hold, in this instance that marriage is an important institution intended for a man and a woman?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    boredboy – do you support or condem defacing the Protect Marriage petition?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. eszett (2,357 comments) says:

    Next you’ll be suggesting that my saying that it’s not right for someine to marry the eiffel tower makes me a franco-hater.

    No, not only an eiffel tower hater.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Andrei (2,531 comments) says:

    What always amazes me is how progressives mistake degeneracy for “enlightenment”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. eszett (2,357 comments) says:

    What always amazes me is how you, Andrei, mistake everything that you dislike for degeneracy

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

    Short shrivelled and left, like I said, who cares about this poll, the Campbell live poll went the other way. Polls indicate very little to me, especially, this far out in the debate.

    Things will change vastly as the debate rages and what is exactly at stake here is discussed.

    Also the 18,000 Support Marriage petition names were taken over only a few days (after it was cyber attacked), you can bet most of them are National voters. You can also bet as this debate goes on, there will be a lot more names added to that list.

    That petition is designed to send a strong message to our National MPs, that there is strong dissent in the community.

    I think John Key should weigh this up and think about giving the power back to the people on this issue, because families, their purpose and structure and make up effects every single citizen in our society profoundly.

    This is the most fundamental issue our society has faced in the last twenty years and it is undemocractic to not allow all New Zealanders to have a voice in it. I think this needs to go to a binding referendum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. eszett (2,357 comments) says:

    This is the most fundamental issue our society has faced in the last twenty years

    Seriously?????

    How so?
    How is granting a small number of people within our society the right to marry “the most fundamental issue our society has faced in the last twenty years”?

    All New Zealanders have a voice in it. Through their representatives like on every other issue. You can contact your MP anytime.

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

    Dick Gozinya: who cares about this poll, the Campbell live poll went the other way

    The Campbell poll was based on a self-selecting poll. These are unreliable since they often reflect the imbalance of passion, rather than the balance of opinion. Seriously, this is high-school level stats here. Polls based on self-selecting samples aren’t reliable. Colmar Brunton, on the other hand make a living from polls, and try to do them professionally.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Chuck Bird (4,748 comments) says:

    “Even Rodney explained to you why a referendum is uncalled for”

    eszett, I was disappointed. Not because of his point of view but his flip flop.

    Rodney, was in complete agreement with me on conscience issues being decided by referendum. He was in full agreement with my reasons. Of course that was when he was wanting support. This may have been how he got into trouble. Tell one person one thing and another another thing. I doubt if he will come on here and claim what I say is not true because I could get witnesses to support me. I asked him this at a public meeting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. eszett (2,357 comments) says:

    I am sure you were, Chuck, it was not the answer you were expecting.
    But his reasoning was sound and rational. (and I am not a big fan of Rodney)

    I can’t possibly comment on what his stance on referenda was before as i don’t know.
    Judging by some of the “out-there” ACT supports (such as Ansell) what you say could have been the case. You will admit though, that he will speak more freely and honestly now than he did before.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Andrei (2,531 comments) says:

    Yes Eszett – seriously!!!!

    You will notice that those who are vehemently opposed are quite often those who have walked the walk and actually raised children, unlike out blog host who is a middle aged unmarried man who has had very little to do with the matter.

    And we know that the family plays an important role in socializing children and in particular boys need a mother and a father to learn how to relate as men to other men and to women.

    In fact deliberately placing children in families with two mommies or two daddies is a form of child abuse.

    And the gay lobby disgust me because their real purpose is to corrupt other peoples children into their malfunctions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. eszett (2,357 comments) says:

    unlike out blog host who is a middle aged unmarried man who has had very little to do with the matter.

    Pulling a Maggie Barry, are we?

    In fact deliberately placing children in families with two mommies or two daddies is a form of child abuse.

    That is just complete and utter bullshit, typical ignorant, hateful and malicious bullshit.
    Gays have been successfully and happily raising children for decades, sexuality has no bearing on their qualities as parents.

    And the gay lobby disgust me because their real purpose is to corrupt other peoples children into their malfunctions.

    More irrational and idiotic nonsense.

    Homosexuals who want to marry want to live happy lives like everyone else, possibly with families of their own. They have no interest in other peoples children.

    Unlike the religious folk like yourself, I might add, who quite happily want to inflict their hateful, irrational poison on other peoples children if they get the chance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Pete George (23,278 comments) says:

    Andrei, are you trying the Maggie Barry attack? I’ve been married twice, so presumably I have twice as much authority than you to speak about marriage.

    And the gay lobby disgust me because their real purpose is to corrupt other peoples children into their malfunctions.

    I guess it’s waste of time pointing out to you that quite a few people see the real purpose if bible thumping so-called Christians is “to corrupt other peoples children into their malfunctions”.

    Are you aware that homosexuality naturally existed long before religion?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. kowtow (7,914 comments) says:

    pg Evidence for your last sentence please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Griff (6,989 comments) says:

    kowtow
    Go to a farm the zoo or watch some dogs for a few hours
    fundies !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Andrei (2,531 comments) says:

    I’ve been married twice, so presumably I have twice as much authority than you to speak about marriage.

    ROFL – marriage is supposed to be a once in a lifetime event and for life.

    I guess it’s waste of time pointing out to you that quite a few people see the real purpose if bible thumping so-called Christians is “to corrupt other peoples children into their malfunctions”.

    In what way? My goodness, Pete George, we live in a culture that undermines Christian culture in every way it can, Bring up kids in our Orthodox ways is a big challenge, undermined in schools, by TV and movies etc.

    Indeed my rights to bring up our children in our ways holding our values has been consistently violated by liberals who think they know better than we do.

    And what are exactly Christian malfunctions – Pete George?

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

    The poll results are interesting and, although no-one so far seems to have noticed (or at least made comment about it) is a victory for the liberal GLBT group that Labour installed in the Education Ministry during the ’90′s, and actively encouraged to grow during their nine years in power.
    .
    For those who remember that far back, ‘Tomorrows Schools’ introduced a ‘revolutionary’ curriculum into the NZ Education area, under-which the primary sector was taught that it was quite, quite alright and normal for ‘Elizabeth to have two Mummies’(to quote one title from the programme) and that sexual-deviance was totally OK. In essence, ‘Normal’ (ie, the Nuclear family’ of dad, Mum, two children) was to be decried and derided, no matter what it took, ‘abnormal’ made acceptable. Equality was for absolutely everyone and no-one was to be ‘different’, and ‘marriage’ was no longer to be between a mummy and a daddy. Everyone was ‘entitled’ to be happy and ‘families came in all sorts of shapes and all sorts of flavours’. Even boys were OK to ‘marry’ boys.

    That generation of primary school children accepted unquestioningly that their teachers were correct and that what they said was true. They had no reason to doubt their teachers. They are of course now in their 20′s and 30′s and having been well-indoctrinated about what constituted ‘normal’, now reflect this fact in the poll results.

    With an entire generation persuaded that what their parents and grandparents deemed ‘unnatural’ is now totally OK, the results of polls such as these should not be at all surprising. No doubt Helen and the sisterhood are hugging each other with glee, at their success.

    A bit of history, which some might find of interest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Pete George “Are you aware that homosexuality naturally existed long before religion?”

    kowtow (2,476) Says:
    August 7th, 2012 at 5:31 pm

    pg Evidence for your last sentence please.


    Homosexual behavior in animals refers to the documented evidence of homosexual and bisexual behavior in various (non-human) species. Such behaviors include sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same sex animals. A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

    Personally I blame the 60s and the anything goes attitude that is at the heart of the liberal destruction of civilization. :D

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

    Andrei (1,363) Says:
    August 7th, 2012 at 5:10 pm

    Yes Eszett – seriously!!!!

    You will notice that those who are vehemently opposed are quite often those who have walked the walk and actually raised children, unlike out blog host who is a middle aged unmarried man who has had very little to do with the matter.

    And we know that the family plays an important role in socializing children and in particular boys need a mother and a father to learn how to relate as men to other men and to women.

    In fact deliberately placing children in families with two mommies or two daddies is a form of child abuse.

    And the gay lobby disgust me because their real purpose is to corrupt other peoples children into their malfunctions.

    Cut the bullshit, Andrei the Pharisee. We all know the real reason you are so vehemently against gay marriage is because of your homophobia. You couldn’t a damn about children being raised in families. How many volunteer hours have you put into looking after abused children?

    That’s the thing with Christians today. They dress up their religion with fake concern about the welfare of families when in reality not a single hour of their lives has been given to help, truly help, needy families. Jesus was all about caring for the poor. The Christians on this blog care about random American apologetics that talk about how homosexuality is unnatural. It’s all about a ‘war on Christianity’ when in reality Christianity does fuck all for modern society. Christianity used to be about helping beggars and soup kitchens and homeless shelters. Today it gives nothing to society, and all it does is judge people. Groups like Family First are all about protesting against homosexuality rather than helping the needy. And you wonder why you’ve lost your standing as a pillar of light on the top of a hill. It is a skin cancer on the world, and the sooner your generation of Pharisaical Christians die out and the younger generation of carefree Christians take over, people will look back on gay marriage and wonder why it was ever an issue at all. People like you will be viewed like grandparents in the Southern States in America who were racist and still hold angsty views against interracial marriage.

    GP: You write very honestly about growing up in a racist and fundamentalist church in the South. Does your experience help you sympathise with individuals who may be caught up in a church that functions almost like an institutional principality and power?

    PY: When you grow up in a very tight, almost cultic environment, you have a corner on truth. You perceive yourself as a besieged minority of truth and everyone else is out there straying. But then I discovered that a lot of those things I was taught were wrong. Then you feel betrayed. ‘I am trying to speak to a largely overlooked group of people who’ve been damaged by the church, and to validate their experience.’

    GP: In What’s so Amazing about Grace? you mention your struggle with your friend Mel White (who was pastor at my church, Pasadena Covenant, when I was in the US) over the homosexuality issue. He once ghost wrote for Jerry Falwell and others and then came out as gay. How do you think the church is handling the gay issue give it’s one where many people feel bruised and abused?

    PY: The church in the US is handling it terribly. Mel turns up at every church conference and pickets them to ordain gays and gets arrested, so he’s kind of creating division as well. But the church seems to want enemies, especially the electronic church who have to raise money to stay in business.
    When their were Communists we had enemies. After Communism faded homosexuality arose as the enemy. Now it may be Muslims, I don’t know.

    A friend of mine who struggles with homosexuality himself, but would consider himself a changed person and is married, is deeply compassionate for homosexuals and runs a ministry for AIDS sufferers. He said Christians tend to get very angry towards other Christians who sin differently than they do. That’s a very important line for me. People write to me and say, How can you possibly be a friend of a sinner like Mel White?’ I say, ‘How can Mel White possibly be a friend of a sinner like me?’

    We sin differently and its really up to God to judge whether Mel’s right or wrong in his conclusions about that. Mel’s sincere but he may be wrong. I don’t agree with his stance. But Jesus seemed exceptionally tender towards people with sexual sins and exceptionally fierce towards people with pride, ‘judgmentalism’, racism etc. These are the sins and temptations for me. So I’ve got to look out for my own sin.

    Jesus seemed exceptionally tender towards people with sexual sins and exceptionally fierce towards people with pride, judgmentalism, racism.

    - Philip Yancey, http://www.zadok.org.au/perspectives/issue73/yancy.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. kowtow (7,914 comments) says:

    If that’s evidence then I’m not surprised gruff is such a sucker for global warming alarmism.

    loonies! How’s the Jesus channelling going?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. SGA (943 comments) says:

    @Andrei – “ROFL – marriage is supposed to be a once in a lifetime event and for life.”

    Well so much for all the widows and widowers that read this blog, idiot. You are the sort of person that REALLY gives Christianity a bad name.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. kowtow (7,914 comments) says:

    So the animal kingdom is now the model for human behaviour?

    Frogs spawn in ponds so what do you do at the pool?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. eszett (2,357 comments) says:

    kowtow (2,477) Says:
    August 7th, 2012 at 5:31 pm

    pg Evidence for your last sentence please.

    Do some reading, kowtow, if you are really interested.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality

    Even if you snub a wikipedia, you can follow the original links or google the references.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Reid (16,091 comments) says:

    I guarantee that if I asked all of you to explain what the social engineering issues were with allowing gay marriage to occur, none of you would be able to answer.

    You probably wouldn’t even know there are any issues.

    In this you are exactly the same as those who answered the survey. The vast majority of you have no idea how social engineering works and what it is. So if you are in this position then of course, like naive little children, you’re in favour of gay marriage, world peace, loving small furry animals, and everything else that’s cute and fluffy.

    The thing about this debate which saddens me is, there are so few actual adults out there, who are mature in this subject.

    The Dom Post editorial DPF posted on yesterday typified the mass ignorance most of you have, when it said it was really hard to see how gay marriage would attack the institution of marriage. I mean talk about whoosh, go straight over their head, and these guys are editors of the most politically “astute” newspaper in the entire country.

    That’s how sad it is.

    You people are displaying useful idiocy. Sure, it’s not like it’s the first attack ever on the family unit. It won’t be the last. But it’s real disappointing, in this information age, to see how many conservatives get hooked up in the foolishness. Lefties I expect to be, but conservatives? That’s the sad part.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. kiwi in america (2,466 comments) says:

    This issue positvely begs to be put to a referendum. An interesting thing happens here in the US. Polls consistently show a plurality supporting gay marriage albeit not by as strong a margin as the polls in New Zealand. And yet when voters in the US actually get to vote on this subject (the favoured method being referenda that attempt to amend a State’s Constition defining marriage as between a man and women only), the strike rate for initiatives supporting traditional marriage are on a 32 – 0 winning streak and that includes liberal states like California!

    It’s trendy to tell pollsters yeah I support gay marriage because its the latest PC thing and no one wants to be outed as homophobic by the pro gay actvists who label anyone who doesn’t support their cause as being hate speech purveyors but in the privacy of the polling booth, they go with their gut feeling which is that gays ought not be discriminated against but that the institution of marriage ought to stay as it has been for centuries. Like NZ, almost all states have civil unions and a suite of laws that protect the property, pension, hospital visitation and other rights for gay couples.

    Finally why up end the institution for this tiny vocal minority that want gay marriage. I have a number of gay friends – the lesbians see marriage as an institution of male patriarchy and they don’t care for it and amongst the gay men most can hardly stay in a stable monogomous relationship long enough to even approximate a marriage. The happy gay male couple together for 20 years yearning for societal acceptance by being able to marry might total 1,500 people a year in NZ. Why change the law just to suit this small group’s (and their vocal media allies’) whims. And if we do so as a country then let us all have a say in that change so that it could be said that a true consensus had emerged. What we have now is a consensus amongst the chattering classes who deem to speak for the great unwashed masses who I suspect will be similar to their US counterparts – likely to vote for the status quo.

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

    Reid

    Re: ‘I guarantee that if I asked all of you to explain what the social engineering issues were with allowing gay marriage to occur, none of you would be able to answer.

    You probably wouldn’t even know there are any issues.’

    Given that some of us who read KB on a regular basis, hold Degrees in various disciplines which require an awareness of such issues, might I suggest that your statement and ‘guarantee’ is probably somewhat unwise.

    Just a thought.

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

    @ Komata – Tomorrow’s Schools was a school funding and governance reform programme.
    Two mummies, etc?
    - Are you talking history, or are you talking about your own zero-research conspiracy theory ‘history’?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. kowtow (7,914 comments) says:

    KIA

    As always good points.

    Marriage is universally recognised as between men and women. Where wil these people whose “marriages” have a limited recognition fare in countries that are either democratic or traditional?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. thedavincimode (6,589 comments) says:

    ROFL – marriage is supposed to be a once in a lifetime event and for life.

    The deployment of the every day “ROFL” can insightful or indeed even confirming of one’s view Andrei. Some might now say that you are simply a silly, smug, arrogant, patronising, uncharitable, mean-spirited, bigoted and thoroughly un-Christian hypocritical old cunt who personifies every criticism that is capable of being levelled at the vigilant G**-bothering brigade.

    Of course, I would never say that although I can confirm that in my case your use of “ROFL” merely confirmed what I deduced to be the case long ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Griff (6,989 comments) says:

    universally recognised as between men and women
    Fom factsoutyourarsedotcom as accessed by kowtow

    Which means that the following states are not recognised as being in this universe by factsoutyourarsedotcom

    Argentina
    Belgium
    Canada
    Denmark
    Iceland
    Netherlands
    Norway
    Portugal
    South Africa
    Spain
    Sweden
    United States: CT, DC, IA, MA, NH, NY, VT, Coquille, Suquamishb CA (conditional), MD, RI
    Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten (Netherlands only)
    Israel
    Mexico: all states
    Uruguay

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

    A referendum is unsuitable when it comes to human rights, where one group may seek to quash the rights of a minority. If a referendum was initiated, only those who feel passionately about the issue would vote, much like the Campbell Live poll.
    Churches would compel their followers to vote against.
    GLBT people would vote for.
    Noone else would really care enough to vote.
    There are more churchgoers than GLBT people so against vote would likely win. Even though the majority of NZers disagree.
    Less than 12 years ago a similar referendum in Alabama failed to overturn a ban on interracial marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    GLBT people would vote for

    Which begs the question… where the poll segmentation by sexual orientation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    Why would we spend 11 million on a referendum when the public have spoken. Most Kiwi’s favour gay marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Reid (16,091 comments) says:

    Given that some of us who read KB on a regular basis, hold Degrees in various disciplines which require an awareness of such issues, might I suggest that your statement and ‘guarantee’ is probably somewhat unwise.

    Just a thought.

    Yes quite right Komata and thanks for pointing out my error in being so equivocal when of course, I actually have no idea.

    However if there are in fact lots of people who do in fact understand social engineering then on such a transparent engineering issue as this, which to those who understand, is so clearly and inarguably against such a critical social institution as the family unit, it is odd that there are so very few Kiwibloggers who to date have given indications of said understanding.

    This issue positvely begs to be put to a referendum.

    No of course it doesn’t KIA. Crikey. You have to wait till someone does a poll saying that this issue begs to be put to a referendum, before Key will take that position. I mean crikey. Everyone knows that, don’t they?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. kowtow (7,914 comments) says:

    I love the left . Democracy,equality rarara. Until it looks like we gonna lose.Is that why the unions still insist on open voting,they like to ensure the result in free and fair votes.

    and gruff ,in many of those countrie it was highly controversial and still is .Rammed through by the left/elites.How mant countries are there in the world? wow you’re 16 are a big majority.

    Like I said man /woman universal. The rest political shenanigans. I can imagine same sex marrige goes down well in the townships in SA.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    KIA – Any more sensible, evidence-based commentary like that and you’ll be sent to the homophobe sin-bin :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Griff (6,989 comments) says:

    universal.
    Wrong word as you have used it twice I can now tell you that you are talking shite
    notice the Scandinavian country’s and Canada
    It will not be changed in these countries because they are progressive democracy’s as are we
    which is why it will come to pass here as well

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. cha (3,842 comments) says:

    A question for those who believe homosexuality is a choice.

    Why, despite the use of medicine and public monies to attempt prevention of benign behavioral sex variations being contrary to accepted ethical practice, are drugs being used on pregnant women to prevent lesbian, bisexual and intersex babies?.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Reid (16,091 comments) says:

    they are progressive democracy’s as are we which is why it will come to pass here as well

    Er Griff. Pwogwessive is just an invented word to make people think it’s weally weally advanced and neaty. But it’s not really. They have been inventing words like this latest one, since forever, because they can’t allow the policies to stand on their own, because then people would look at them and see them for the pile of stinking, rotting, festering putrid garbage that they really truly in fact are. So they warp a little word around it and get all the young people who know nothing about anything, to repeat it, and sometimes, the odd mature person gets sucked in as well, a bit like those people who sadly continue to invest in finance companies well after the fat lady has sung to all the smart money and it’s all left a few months ago.

    So that’s really how it works. The real point is, unless you’re a young person who doesn’t know anything or one of those sad people who’s just lost their life savings because they didn’t understand what was REALLY going on, you don’t want to be joining this particular bandwagon. Simple as that, really.

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

    ” Actually there is no such thing as a homosexual person, anymore than there is such a thing as a hetrosexual person. These words are adjectives describing sexual acts, not people. Those sexual acts are entirely natural , if they were not , no one would perform them.”

    From the essay ” Sex in Politics” – Gore Vidal January 1979.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Griff (6,989 comments) says:

    Conservative is just a made up word it really means idiots that cant look past the past and have a fear of change.
    Some people think that being a conservative is a good thing yet if man was only conservative we would be swinging around in tress or worshipping the sun.
    Things change even for conservatives in time today’s radical becomes tomorrows norm.
    People once thought that the wheel would never catch on carrying loads was much better.they used to had the idea that if we went too fast our heads would explode yet now man rides in cars at 100kph as a matter of course. Some men have travelled at 8000 m/s and there heads still dont explode in fact they have tea at that speed.
    The real point is unless you are a old person or a religious nutter change is good and exciting and not scary at all its progress

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

    I also think a binding referendum is the way to handle such a constitutional matter involving societal relationships.

    This isn’t a constitutional matter.

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

    Komata

    In essence, ‘Normal’ (ie, the Nuclear family’ of dad, Mum, two children) was to be decried and derided, no matter what it took…

    Can we get an example of this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Reid (16,091 comments) says:

    I don’t think gay marriage is a bad idea because I’m conservative griff and neither do I think it’s bad because I’m a Christian.

    Why John Key and DPF and WhaleOil all think gay marriage is just wonderful and they’re conservatives, aren’t they? The Anglican clergy are right now initiating a debate in the church about the church’s position on gay marriage and I bet you anything that, unlike the Catholics, the Anglican’s (of which I’m one) will come out in favour.

    So no, I think it’s bad because I understand social engineering and I know this is nothing more and nothing less than an engineered attack on the family unit Griff. And since by golly I quite like the family unit as an institution in society and because I know what society will be like if society let’s the attack proceed (because I understand social engineering), then I’m against gay marriage.

    Simply as that really. And I’m neither an old person nor a religious nutter, although I am religious Griff. I also enjoy change, when it doesn’t destroy cherished institutions that civilisation depends on. That’s when I draw the line, perhaps change isn’t quite so good, if it’s going to destroy a cherished institution that civilisation depends on. Call me an old fuddy duddy, but I’m just like that Griff. I quite like civilisation and it’d be a shame to see pwogwessives destroy it because they were too stupid to understand just exactly what they were doing, in their pwogwessiveness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Reid (16,091 comments) says:

    Komata just read your 5:47, and now understand your perspective. Sorry for not getting it before and thanks for that elucidation. Insidious creatures, aren’t they.

    I wonder what would happen if every time National got into power we evacuated all the socialist poison from the education system and injected some good old economic and social backbone, and everytime the sides changed, that started to happen. I wonder what the parents would start to think then. It would certainly be better than letting lefties get away with it silently for decades, wouldn’t it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Aredhel777 (282 comments) says:

    “Less than 12 years ago a similar referendum in Alabama failed to overturn a ban on interracial marriage.”

    I don’t believe that. Source please.

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

    kiwi in america

    I have a number of gay friends

    Were they some of your best friends?

    – the lesbians see marriage as an institution of male patriarchy and they don’t care for it

    Good thing no one is suggesting that marriage should be compulsory then, eh.

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

    Komata just read your 5.47 and if you think teachers actually shape peoples thinking you are sadly deluded.

    If your argument held any sort of water we would still have a labour government wouldn’t we? Surely, because of this mass indoctrination most would be voting labour surely?

    I like to think that each generation grows in tolerance and drops the more odious behaviour of their parents generation.

    My kids are colour blind, something that was not evident when I was growing up.

    Sadly the more christian here seem to be the least tolerant because not only do they now own marriage they now seem to own the family unit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. kowtow (7,914 comments) says:

    THe notion that redefining marriage to include same sex as being some sortof natural progression in society or liberal democracies is absolute bollocks,

    Every where it has been pushed through by left parties or by homosexual activists engaging in lawfare.In some cses it is even same sex couples from one jurisdiction bringing a case in another,to force change. Courts recognise a relationship on the grounds of equality and then MPs of the left/homo persuasion take up the issue in the national legislature.

    There is no huge groundswell among the people for these chnges and the activists know this,thereby evading referenda and keeping social change/engineering in the hands of the elite,be they judicial or legislative.

    This is very much an anti democratic exercise and part of the culture wars.

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

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States#Alabama_gets_that_banjo_off_its_knee

    Aredhel777

    have a read……………..In November 2000, Alabama became the last state to overturn a law banning interracial marriage. The one-time home of George Wallace and Martin Luther King Jr. had held onto the provision for 33 years after the Supreme Court declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. Yet as the election revealed—40 percent of Alabamans voted to keep the ban—apparently many Alabamans still see the necessity for a law that prohibits blacks and whites from mixing blood.[6]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Reid (16,091 comments) says:

    Sadly the more christian here seem to be the least tolerant because not only do they now own marriage they now seem to own the family unit.

    Paul it’s not a question of tolerance. It’s a question of denying destructive forces the opportunity to destroy.

    There have been other times in history when some sectors of society haven’t seen the truth, that destructive forces were in fact operating, and they said OK, go for it and then they reaped the consequences. All I’m trying to do, personally, is prevent those consequences from arising in the first place.

    That’s what its about, for me. And I’m not denying anyone anything. Like I’ve repeatedly said and no-one has yet refuted the logic, they have civil union, which gives them all rights and if they want adoption too that’s a separate debate, it’s an adoption debate not a marriage debate. They aren’t losing anything.

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

    Reid, buddy!.. crazy as ever. Good to see.

    Pwogwessive is just an invented word to make people think it’s weally weally advanced and neaty. But it’s not really. They have been inventing words like this latest one, since forever, because they can’t allow the policies to stand on their own, because then people would look at them and see them for the pile of stinking, rotting, festering putrid garbage that they really truly in fact are.

    Wow, and this works? *This* is the diabolical “social engineering” plan that you’ve been talking about? And despite all you conservatives, this simple word trickery (twickerwy?) is sufficient to fuck up society as we know it? geez, conservatives really are easily tricked.

    So they warp a little word around it

    They warp a word around it? That IS progressive!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Reid (16,091 comments) says:

    *This* is the diabolical “social engineering” plan that you’ve been talking about?

    No. Of course it isn’t Steve. Der.

    Would you like to know what the social engineering plan is?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    All the sheepshaggers I know are 100% in favour cause they know that their kink comes next! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. cha (3,842 comments) says:

    I don’t believe that. Source please.

    A 2000 referendum to overturn interracial marriage ban passed but a 2004 vote to remove segregationist language from the state constitution failed.

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

    Reid

    Do you remember how the world was going to end when homosexuality was legalised?

    Has it?

    Two men – married living next door to me will change your life how?

    If these two men get divorced, this will effect your life how?

    If my wife and I divorce this will effect your life how?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Pete George (23,278 comments) says:

    they have civil union, which gives them all rights

    CU is a variant Clayton’s marriage – the marriage you have when you’re not allowed a real marriage. Queers should just shut up and be grateful they’re allowed that much. And leave marriage to proper people who pass the test of acceptability of a few self appointed guardians of morality,.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. thedavincimode (6,589 comments) says:

    Johnboy, welcome back but be careful. The force of G** is strong here, but His spirit is not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Andrei (2,531 comments) says:

    Pete George gays cannot have a real marriage – that is something that can only happen between a man and a woman.

    That was so obvious when that the 1955 marriage act was drafted that nobody even thought of spelling it out.

    The leftoids have been attacking marriage for the past forty years and have done a very good job of trashing it – this is just the next step in destroying it entirely by defining it as a nonsense.

    It also has the side effect of trashing something all religions deem sacred and offending religious people – and I know some some liberal Christians have been sucked in and have emptied their churches in the process but that doesn’t alter the fact that this is blasphemous

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Reid (16,091 comments) says:

    Two men – married living next door to me will change your life how?

    Paul, this is NOT about MY life, or your life. It’s about society’s perception and practice of marriage as an institution decades hence.

    That’s the arena for social engineering.

    The argument that a single marriage won’t affect you or I is not relevant. We are talking social, collective perceptions which in turn, drive practice. And preceptions and practice drive and feed off each other, just like positive thinking and going to the gym vs drinking too much during the week and being lazy.

    Pete: question: who is driving this debate? Is it gay men, or gay women? Have you thought about that? See, most men, gay or straight, don’t give a fuck about marriage, do we. No, we don’t. But most women, gay or straight, do give very much of a fuck about it. Women are naturally designed to be swept away by their strong handsome prince aren’t they and men are naturally designed to play the role of the handsome prince to their sweethearts. That’s the mystery of love since time immemorial. It’s irrelevant to the engineering question, I just wondered Pete if it’s occurred to you which sub-group within the LGBT brigade is actually agitating for this, it doesn’t matter to the argument, it’s just an interesting tangent to give some thought to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    If I lived next door to you Eastbay and consorted with my lawfully wedded ewe in full view of Mrs Eastbays rose garden I bet you would be the first bastard to complain? :)

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

    Blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for a religious deity or the irreverence towards religious or holy persons or things.

    Marriage isn’t anything to do with religion its a civil matter FFS

    A fat man in an Elvis suit can marry me and my wife if we so wish as long as he is licensed, not by any church or religion but by the civil authorities. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Reid (16,091 comments) says:

    Marriage = family. To most people the institution of marriage and the family are one and the same thing. Exceptions don’t matter in social engineering. This is why childless couples, loveless marriages etc are all irrelevant. We are talking broad general social stereotypes. What is the collective conciousness, of the institution of marriage. That’s the question. And right now, you will find, when people play ‘word association’ and you give them “marriage” they will say something like: “settle down” “have kids”

    They will.

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

    Just the SPCA JB regarding cruelty to the animal

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    I always said “higher lambing percentage” reid!

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

    Marriage = paying a fee to a civil a servant and you are married, similar to obtaining a dog licence, just another tax.

    You can not be married without paying a fee to a civil authority, it will not be recognised if the dosh is not forked over

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Reid (16,091 comments) says:

    After two generations, 40 years, of gay marriage, when kids have been born 20 years after the debate was over and gays had been getting married for 20 years before those kids were born, in 2032 and now it’s 2052 and those kids are 20 and doing what 20 year olds do and some of them, start to think about marriage. What do you think those kids in 2052 are going to have in their collective consciousness, having been raised by parents who were kids when the whole gay marriage thing came and went and then it was just common for just anyone to hitch up any old time and somehow, the whole “having kids” thing went out the window a bit. Hard to say when that was maybe in the 2040′s, who really knows but anyway not it’s all a lot freer and just casual, you know, fucking, drugs, that happens with everyone but maybe if you’re serious get married but there’s rarely any kids – marriage these days is really just to demonstrate you love your partner. No-one really wants kids, they just drag you down.

    Sure some straight girls you know, they seem to have this biological thing going on. Despite their fantastic careers some of them seem to really want kids despite what that does to their earning power and often, in 2052 the marriage just blows apart man cos you know, no man wants a screaming brat round. I mean who would.

    It’s the result of changing the juxtaposition of the collective consciousness from marriage=family, to marriage=sex.

    And whatever you say about an individual gay relationship being all loving and all of that, the fact is, a gay relationship is always and can only be, based on sex. It can never by definition be based on the unselfish act of lovingly bringing other human beings into the world and raising them from conception. Gays can never have that. Gays obviously want to have that, but they never can. It’s sad that they can’t, but none of us designed the biological laws. None of us are responsible for those and none of us need feel guilty for them being the way they are.

    Now lots of gays I dare say most of them are extremely genuine in their heartfelt desire for what they see is an inequality. However, just because gays genuinely believe it’s an equality, does not make that a fact. Secondly, even if they feel like that, doesn’t automatically mean they have a genuine point. Gays like anyone else can be manipulated into holding positions by clever activists and in this issue, a global issue, you’ve clearly got some of the best spin doctors in the world managing the media and collective opinions here. I mean just behold at the magnificent mastery in the message management. Even if you hate the content, you have to admire the technique. And that’s what’s happening here. Lots of genuine, honest gays have been sucked in, lots of genuine, honest straight people, likewise.

    I know I’ve left significant gaps in my above explanation. It’s much easier to explain in person, believe me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    To save Gaia we should of course be encouraging gay marriage. Particularly in say Africa, China, India etc. :)

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

    Reid

    Of all your late evening ramblings your 9.27pm is about the most nonsensical I’ve ever bothered reading

    …e.g And whatever you say about an individual gay relationship being all loving and all of that, the fact is, a gay relationship is always and can only be, based on sex….

    Also I have yet to see any definition of marriage that stipulates that you have to bring children into the world , dear oh dear.

    Its not that you’ve left significant gaps in your explanation rather the entire comment is a gap of any type of logic or sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Andrei (2,531 comments) says:

    We are not going to get to forty years after gay “marriage” Reid.

    The crisis is upon us now – that of an aging population which has not replenished itself.

    And my kids will have to support the ever increasing elderly population – the self centered, self absorbed children of the sixties who preferred to party up large and not have raise children to carry on from themselves.

    And these cretins feel entitled to s superannuation and health care which my kids will have to provide which means they wont have enough resources to raise their own.

    Further more the decadent children of the sixties have actually made a mockery of the fundamental institution, marriage, and its purpose in ensuring the future generations are raised well – indeed these contemptible self centered aresholes have made abortion a sacred thing lest a child come along that would interfere with your right to hedonistic self expression.

    Notice that in all the empty headed blather about “rights” there is never any mention of duty certainly not of any duty to posterity

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Griff (6,989 comments) says:

    JB
    August 7th, 2012 at 8:51 pm
    Watch what you wish for we all know married ewes don’t suck

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    Hey I’m a child from the sixties Andrei and I’ve done enough rooting to deserve my super so watch your mouth sonny!! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    All the bloody bitches that I’ve married do Griff!! :)

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

    ‘I wonder what would happen if every time National got into power we evacuated all the socialist poison from the education system and injected some good old economic and social backbone, and everytime the sides changed, that started to happen. I wonder what the parents would start to think then. It would certainly be better than letting lefties get away with it silently for decades, wouldn’t it.’

    Sounds like standard Canadian political practice. It makes for interesting times, but can be very disruptive, and cause chaos when those departing take their ‘ portfolio-notes’ with them. It also gives the phrase ‘Jobs for the boys’ a whole new meaning. Conversely, in New Zealand, when the Labour party departs from Government , its appointees are left behind and seem to then act as a very insidious ‘Fifth column’(or ‘moles’), working in the expectation of their beloved party’s return. Civil servants are supposed to be ‘apolitical’ but this would rarely seem to be the case, especially with the PSA still being able to operate with impunity. and without regulation. For some odd reason, the Nat’s don’t seem to do this to any great extent, but rather appoint the best person to the position (even those of the former administration).
    Perhaps someone can explain why this could be so?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Andrei (2,531 comments) says:

    Also I have yet to see any definition of marriage that stipulates that you have to bring children into the world , dear oh dear.

    Apart from the fact that it was self evident to previous generations including all the hetrosexual couples in your ancestry it is also written into all the ancient marriage ceremonies.

    To be sure your fat Elvis impersonator marriage celebrant probably doesn’t include it in his rubrics but then again anybody who gets married that way is clearly white trash

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. nasska (10,867 comments) says:

    You sure type some crap Andrei…..as I’m in my early sixties I guess that I’d be grouped in with your “children of the sixties” demographic. A quick mental count up of the twenty odd people I regularly associate with produces one person who hasn’t bred.(& he is gay).

    The rest have between two & six…..I’m buggered if I know whose arse you drag your figures out of.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Andrei (2,531 comments) says:

    Treasuries Nasska

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Griff (6,989 comments) says:

    Another case of WWW:FACTSOUTOFYOURARSEFORCHRISTIANS.com
    KOWTOW was quoting stuff from there earlier

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    Catholics regard two to six as not doing the Lords work strenuously enough nasska.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Reid (16,091 comments) says:

    Of all your late evening ramblings your 9.27pm is about the most nonsensical I’ve ever bothered reading

    I’m definitely bookmarking it then Paul so I can drag it out all the time when you’re on the thread in days and weeks to come.

    I admit it wasn’t my most perspicacious ever but the central logic is sound, even though you refuse to recognise it.

    If a gay relationship is not based on sex, then what, pray tell, is it based on? Even if a particular gay couple chose never to have sex with each other in their entire relationship and I’m sure there are a few of those, what pray tell in your opinion attracts them to each other?

    Whereas what attracts a man and a woman together? Is it sex? No it’s called procreation of the species. And all that entails. Remember Paul, we’re talking general social concepts here so your references to childless couples are irrelevant as I’ve explained. You obdurately refuse to acknowledge this, I can’t imagine why.

    Perhaps someone can explain why this could be so?

    Yeah I’d be interested in knowing as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    “I can’t imagine why.”

    Surely not Reid!

    Paul is a closet gayboy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Griff (6,989 comments) says:

    “Whereas what attracts a man and a woman together? Is it sex? No it’s called procreation of the species”
    :lol: :lol: :lol:

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

    Andrei

    ………….anybody who gets married that way is clearly white trash

    Again the self important arrogance, how would the fat elvis couples marriage be any less legitimate than a chuch wedding?

    You are a sad individual really, but its the insufferable smugness that really fucks me off, obviously if things aren’t done your way its not correct. There are medical terms for that type of behaviour but arrogance is just as apt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. nasska (10,867 comments) says:

    That video is classic JB! It enabled an enjoyable wet afternoon last year arguing the toss over whether masturbation was indeed murder. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    “Arguing the toss” :)

    Your naughty but I like you nasska!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Griff (6,989 comments) says:

    Andrei has the most in here reid a close second with kowtow http://twitter.com/KiwibogKomments
    I hope they keep it up it really is funny reading others take on us. I guess you have made it when you are included :lol:

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

    Reid

    Your next effort was no more “perspicacious” (good word by the way) than your first.

    ….what pray tell in your opinion attracts them to each other?

    Its called love Reid, simple really. Now I suppose I about to be told how its impossible for a same sex couple to love each other but…..

    And when putting your thesis forward Reid you can’t cherry pick to attempt to make it anymore lucid, so childless couples have to be brought into the argument, couples that know prior to marriage that they can’t concieve still go through with it so again your argument is specious at best.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    Anyway. Nothing like a good wholesome, heterosexual partnership for the good of the children.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/7430716/Mum-laughed-while-child-was-violated

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Reid (16,091 comments) says:

    “I can’t imagine why.” Paul is a closet gayboy?

    I’ve been thinking about that Johnboy. It’s certainly one of the frontrunners.

    “Whereas what attracts a man and a woman together? Is it sex? No it’s called procreation of the species”

    Exactly Griff. It occurred to me when I posted that line someone might misinterpret it and guess what, you’ve fallen straight into my clever trap. Bwahahaha.

    No seriously I did have a distinction in mind. At the heart of male-female attraction is something primal, primordial, mysterious, almost supernatural in its essence in that it’s at the heart of species and nature. It’s our DNA interacting at a fundamental level. It’s like an eternal dance that always continues and never stops, never has and never will and almost as a side-event, like a bonus, we get to bring others into the world through it, which then brings more joy. I just don’t see gay relationships having that dimension. It’s sad for them, but they just don’t have it, they can’t have it, we can’t give it to them since its not within our purvue to grant it and they cannot demand it or take it from us. That’s what I see is different.

    when putting your thesis forward Reid you can’t cherry pick to attempt to make it anymore lucid

    Yes I can Paul, I just did above. See?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    “It’s like an eternal dance that always continues and never stops”

    Not anymore since the Lord, in his everlasting wisdom, created Sildenafil Citrate! :) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Reid (16,091 comments) says:

    No the Lord provided the lab Johnboy. Man in his eternal perversion decided to use the wonderful opportunity to give himself an eternal hard-on, rather than say, free energy or space/time travel or something useful like that.

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

    Yes I can Paul, I just did above. See?

    Yes I did see and so it makes any point you are trying to make very trying indeed and makes no sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    Quite true Reid. Hopefully the Lord’s lab will create loose women, at very low prices next, to accommodate the previous invention! :)

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

    Tell us again why infertile couples or couples who do not intend to have children can get married?

    I enjoy watching you guys dancing around on that particular pinhead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Griff (6,989 comments) says:

    That is not fair JB little guys like me like tight woman more friction. low prices sounds good at least lower than half your worldly goods.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Reid (16,091 comments) says:

    Paul I’m afraid I can’t really help you explore the true nature of gay attraction for it doesn’t really interest me as much as it would appear to interest your good self.

    It’s just that it doesn’t have any bearing on my argument against gays getting married, that’s all.

    If you think it does then by all means pray explain why. But otherwise, let’s talk tomorrow.

    Tell us again why infertile couples or couples who do not intend to have children can get married?

    Because a social construct existing in the collective consciousness of a society does not consist of point instances boredboy and social constructs are what social engineering deals with and only what social engineering deals with. It’s quite simple.

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

    Still doesn’t explain why infertile couples are allowed to marry.

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

    Would you like to know what the social engineering plan is?

    Sure, knock yourself out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    So it sounds like Dime and Johnboy have done enough rooting to make up for the gays and lesbians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. eszett (2,357 comments) says:

    Because a social construct existing in the collective consciousness of a society does not consist of point instances

    Then why should it than be bothered by gay marriage. Besides lesbians can quite easily have and bear children, so they should be included anyway.

    This whole “marriage is for just having children” is just utter rubbish.

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

    Reid says:

    Paul I’m afraid I can’t really help you explore the true nature of gay attraction for it doesn’t really interest me as much as it would appear to interest your good self.

    Yet,

    And whatever you say about an individual gay relationship being all loving and all of that, the fact is, a gay relationship is always and can only be, based on sex…
    etc.

    Sure seem interested. Just sayin’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. kiwi in america (2,466 comments) says:

    Steven Parkes
    In the case of three of the friends they were very close – two male one female. The lesbian recently died of cancer and in the period leading up to the death was an opportunity to get to know her partner really well. Over the years we were able to talk openly and frankly about her lifestyle and how it impacted aspects of her family relationships. One of the gay men was the son of a friend and I was involved in assisting with drug abuse issues in his teens and he opened up to me concerning his lifestyle – it was a window into his world of rampant anonymous casual gay sex. The other male was a work colleague in a next door office and he was remarkably frank and open about his gay life and journey. I was also good friends with openly gay MP Tim Barnett and had several interesting discussions with he and his then partner on the subject of homosexuality. There are others and also a highly experienced and well regarded therapist friend who had some gay clients and she had done considerable academic research on the subject of homosexuality so I believe that am relatively well informed on what makes gays tick.

    The point of my post was to put the numbers of gays who actually want to marry into some kind of perspective and to point out that wanting to be married is only an issue for a very few practicing gays. Since we have full equality of the law and Civil Unions why upend the institution of marriage to contort it to fit the whims of this tiny vocal group. This is about nothing more than symbolism because it surely is not about equality given the current laws.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Pete George (23,278 comments) says:

    @KIA

    Since we have full equality of the law and Civil Unions

    We don’t. All sexes can have civil unions, but only heterosexuals can get married. That is not equality.

    why upend the institution of marriage

    The “institution of marriage” has changed over millenia and over centuries. It has changed substantially over the last few decades. The proposed change simply aligns law with common practice.

    KIA, you seem to be arguing opposites, that “only an issue for a very few practicing gays” and it’s virtually equal now, but that it would ‘upend the institution of marriage’.

    It can’t be hardly any change affecting very few people and a major upend.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. kiwi in america (2,466 comments) says:

    Peter George
    The equality I refer to is all legal matters material to a relationship – pension rights, property sharing, funeral planning, hospital visitations etc . Gay marriage confers no new legal right on gay couples compared to a civil union – the only difference being how the union is described. My point was that only a handful of gay couples are so set on being described as being married as opposed to being in a civil union (and there again only a tiny fraction of couples in committed gay relationships have availed themselves of the various civil union statutes all over the world).

    Contrary to your assertion, marriage has remained largely unchanged – how people align themselves romantically HAS changed (de facto relationships often being preferred over marriage) but for those who choose marriage, the institution has remain unchanged for centuries. The nature of who performs the ceremony (adding state licensed registry officials and marriage celebrants to clergy/religious celebrants who in turn took up the role that was traditionally undertaken by chiefs or tribal leaders/elders) certainly has changed but the core of mutual obligations and commitments of marriage and it’s central role in providing a stable platform for child rearing has been the bulwark of civilization for centuries.

    The upending is that for the first time in human (or should I say NZ) history marriage would no longer be between a man and a woman.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Andrei (2,531 comments) says:

    Pete George you silly little sheep all you are doing is regurgitating meaningless slogans.

    Marriage is a bond between a man and a woman – there is no inequality.

    Anyone who wants to get married seeks a partner from a pool of eligible partners, that is those of opposite gender to themselves of marriageable age who are not yet married.

    Anyone can do this, not all succeed in finding a match.

    If you choose for whatever reason to have sex with someone of the same gender as yourself then you have also chosen to forgo marriage – you cannot have your cake and eat it. as they say.

    Same sex marriage is like trying to eat a steak with two forks

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. eszett (2,357 comments) says:

    Andrei, let me put your arguments in perspective

    Marriage is a bond between a man and a woman of the same race– there is no inequality.

    Anyone who wants to get married seeks a partner from a pool of eligible partners, that is those of same race as themselves of marriageable age who are not yet married.

    Anyone can do this, not all succeed in finding a match.

    If you choose for whatever reason to have sex with someone of the other race as yourself then you have also chosen to forgo marriage – you cannot have your cake and eat it. as they say.

    Interracial marriage is like trying to eat a steak with two forks

    It is the identical(!) argument that was used against inter racial marriage.
    It is a fallacious today as it was then.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. eszett (2,357 comments) says:

    @KIA, well it is surely good to hear some calm and reasoned agruments against gay marriage

    Gay marriage confers no new legal right on gay couples compared to a civil union – the only difference being how the union is described. – the only difference being how the union is described.

    Actually I believe it does when it comes to adoption.

    Besides, if it only comes down to description, why the big fuss about changing it to marriage.
    Surely that means that we already have gay marriage, just chose not to call a spade a spade.

    My point was that only a handful of gay couples are so set on being described as being married as opposed to being in a civil union

    Actually the gay couples I know that have a civil union already refer to themselves as married. Usually they have to go on and explain that it’s a civil union to counter the surprised looks.

    There certainly are gay couples who wish to be married. The uptake also will increase once they are allowed to. Many just don’t want to be civilly unionised.

    Contrary to your assertion, marriage has remained largely unchanged – how people align themselves romantically HAS changed (de facto relationships often being preferred over marriage) but for those who choose marriage, the institution has remain unchanged for centuries. The nature of who performs the ceremony (adding state licensed registry officials and marriage celebrants to clergy/religious celebrants who in turn took up the role that was traditionally undertaken by chiefs or tribal leaders/elders) certainly has changed….

    There are quite a number of changes you list there to claim it as gone largely unchanged. It becoming a secular institution and not to mention no fault divorce available to everyone. But also the reasons to become married, who can choose to marry whom, etc., etc. has changed significantly over the centuries.

    but the core of mutual obligations and commitments of marriage and it’s central role in providing a stable platform for child rearing has been the bulwark of civilization for centuries.

    There is no reason why gay marriage would change this. In fact it would re-enforce this role by expanding it to more people who want to do exactly that.

    The upending is that for the first time in human (or should I say NZ) history marriage would no longer be between a man and a woman.

    Why would including same sex partners in marriage be an upending? It is merely allowing a small portion of the adult population to participate in marriage. How could this possibly be an upending?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. thedavincimode (6,589 comments) says:

    eszett

    Heh. What makes you think that wasn’t Andrei’s first draft? ;)

    Funnily enough, whenever I see Andrei’s posts I think of Mississippi Burning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. kiwi in america (2,466 comments) says:

    Eszat
    Thanks – I find the debate needlessly vitriolic on both sides.

    Gays can adopt in NZ – http://adoptionoption.org.nz/adoption/Who-can-adopt/ – the procedure is different but the outcome is the same.

    I was trying to put the numbers of gays desiring marriage into perspective. If we use the reputable (non agenda driven) surveys of sexual orientation the numbers of gays comprise only 2-3% of the population. Most lesbians eschew marriage as part if the patriarchy they oppose – the various lesbians I know are uninterested in being married. Only a small percentage of the practicing gay male population are in relationships that are stable, monogamous and have sufficient longevity where marriage is contemplated. So a very small subset of a small subset desire marriage and a percentage of them are satisfied with a Civil Union preferring to get on with their lives together rather than draw attention to their relationship.

    Gay lobbyists exert a power and influence far beyond the numbers of not only the gay community but of the even smaller number of the community that are adamant that a CU is not enough. Journalists and the chattering classes overwhelmingly support gay marriage and use their high profile and influence to push the issue. i return to my original post that contrasts polls in the US showing support for gay marriage versus the 32-0 strike rate in favour of traditional marriage when the issue is put to referenda and people actually VOTE. My original point was that an issue this important ought to be put to the ballot. If the supporters of gay marriage are so confident of widespread public support they ought to welcome a referendum.

    Finally on the institution of marriage the core of it has remained unchanged and in all of the different ways that people court, of how families approve of marriage, the ages at which people marry, the ease of divorce – these are all peripheral to the institution and in all these changes, until now, no society ever considered modifying marriage to being between the same sex.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. eszett (2,357 comments) says:

    On those points KIA:

    Most lesbians eschew marriage as part if the patriarchy they oppose – the various lesbians I know are uninterested in being married.

    I know a number of lesbian couples that are together for yonks, have children and are living the happy family life. They also wouldn’t mind getting married if they were allowed to

    Only a small percentage of the practicing gay male population are in relationships that are stable, monogamous and have sufficient longevity where marriage is contemplated.

    I actually also know a number of gay couples that are in a long-term (10 years+) stable relationship. Longer than some marriages.

    I think it is a fallacy to think that gays (male or female) are just out there screwing each other and there is nothing more them.
    It’s like going out to the waterfront on a Saturday night and tell me how many stable, monogamous relationships you see. Not very many.

    And given the amount of civil unions, there is a demand out there.

    My original point was that an issue this important ought to be put to the ballot. If the supporters of gay marriage are so confident of widespread public support they ought to welcome a referendum.

    This will affect, using your numbers, 2-3% of the population by allowing them to marry. How is this such an important issue that it warrants a referendum? Parliament decides far more important issues with far bigger impact than this without a referendum.

    The conscience vote is an extremely fair way of dealing with this issue and those who favour a referendum still have the possibility of a CIR.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Grant Michael McKenna (1,156 comments) says:

    In the late 1990s I saw a play “the Twilight of the Golds” in which a woman who discovered through genetic testing that her unborn son was gay had an abortion. Then it was science fiction; now it seems almost upon us- I predict that soon the only gays will be Catholics [edit: and other religious communities opposed to abortion].

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. cha (3,842 comments) says:

    Then it was science fiction; now it seems almost upon us

    We’re almost there.

    A question for those who believe homosexuality is a choice.

    Why, despite the use of medicine and public monies to attempt prevention of benign behavioral sex variations being contrary to accepted ethical practice, are drugs being used on pregnant women to prevent lesbian, bisexual and intersex babies?.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Pete George (23,278 comments) says:

    Same sex marriage is like trying to eat a steak with two forks

    A steak can be eaten quite well with one fork, or none, but I don’t see the need for two, it’s not like it’s a cob of corn.

    I can’t help thinking of two forks as two hips. Hetero of course.

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

    eszett,

    Your 8:14am rewrite of Andrei’s comment would only make sense if interracial marriages were always sterile. But they are not, in most instances they produce children. Just like a redhead man and a brunette woman can produce children together, just like a short man and a tall woman can produce children, just like a blue eyed woman and a brown-eyed man can produce children, etc, etc, etc adnauseum.

    Sure, some racist societies have banned interracial marriage. But that doesn’t therefore mean that interracial marriage is impossible in the way that same-sex marriage is impossible.

    It’s just a ridiculous and offensive argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. eszett (2,357 comments) says:

    Lucia,

    firstly, it not as ridiculous and offensive as the argument that only people who can conceive can marry. That is something that you guys have conveniently made up and that argument has been discussed and demolished here again and again. It is just nonsense made up to try and exclude homosexuals from marriage, but offends every straight couple who cannot conceive. But I guess that’s just collateral damage to you

    Secondly, exactly the same arguments were in fact used when inter racial marriage was debated, in fact, used by the very same people, like yourself, religious conservatives. That is undeniable and verifiable.

    Andrei was using the same argument against same sex marriage for the same reasons. The comparison should be offensive and he should be ashamed of himself for bring up such a fallacious argument.

    And same sex marriage is not impossible. That is again an argument you have just made up.

    You are more than welcome to use that definition of marriage for yourself, but there is no reason for the rest of society to adopt such discriminatory and demeaning nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. kiwi in america (2,466 comments) says:

    eszet
    The studies don’t back up your anecdotal experience of the longevity of gay male relationships.

    A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the “duration of steady partnerships” was 1.5 years. In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that “few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.”· In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years. The relationship you observed is very much the exception rather than the rule. Lesbian relationships are more enduring but far less likely to be interested in marriage but sure you’ll find some lesbian couples who’d like to marry.

    You overstate the interest in Civil Unions. Department of Statistics records just over 20,000 marriages in the year to December 2011 and only 232 same sex Civil Unions or a piddling 1%.
    http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/marriages-civil-unions-and-divorces/MarriagesCivilUnionsandDivorces_HOTPYeDec11.aspx

    If we use the 2 – 3% figure of the population of 16 being gay this figure tells us only a very small number of gays are interested in gay marriage. Why change the definition of marriage to suit the whims of 200 people a year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. eszett (2,357 comments) says:

    how do you come up with 16? i would say that civil unions are mostly same sex.

    And I ll turn it around KIA and ask why have a different definition for 1% then? Not really economical or rarional.
    Why this uproar for allowing such a small amount?

    Do you have a link to that study?
    All I can say is in my experience there are a lot of stable same sex relationships that last for for decades and are still lasting. I also know of friends that are looking but not finding. Generally the older they get the more they want a stable relationship.

    No different to to all the straight friends that I know.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. kiwi in america (2,466 comments) says:

    eszett
    I used 16 because was the likely the youngest age that someone might enter into a stable long term gay relationship. 77% of civil unions are same sex so the 231 figure comprises the same sex unions out of a total of 300 odd in NZ in 2011.

    There are three studies cited and I will only be able to put 2 links per post so here’s the first two (in the order I posted earlier)

    http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/Abstract/2003/05020/The_contribution_of_steady_and_casual_partnerships.12.aspx

    The second citation is to a book that I cannot link directly to the book but I’m sure you could get it as an ebook from Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Western-Sexuality-Practice-Precept-Relations/dp/0631149899

    I too know of gays in stable relationships but I’ve come to realize that they are the exception rather than the rule.

    All societies, all cultures, all religions throughout all recorded time define marriage the same – as being between a man and a women. Why contort the definition to suit only 1% of the population.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. kiwi in america (2,466 comments) says:

    eszett

    Here’s the link to the 3rd study cited

    http://www.peplaulab.ucla.edu/publications_files/peplau%20%26%20amaro%2082.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. KiwiGreg (3,211 comments) says:

    “Why change the definition of marriage to suit the whims of 200 people a year.”

    Why not? No one who isn’t gay and wants to marry will be affected, despite all the histrionics here and elsewhere. May not be my “A” issue for New Zealand but it’s here now.

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

    Andrei,

    … all you are doing is regurgitating meaningless slogans.

    You mean like…

    Same sex marriage is like trying to eat a steak with two forks

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

    kiwi in america

    – it was a window into his world of rampant anonymous casual gay sex.

    I know of heterosexuals who’ve had lives of “rampant anonymous casual sex” too. But they can settle down and get married.

    I believe that am relatively well informed on what makes gays tick.

    Not as well informed, all other things being equal, as a gay person. So as long as there are gays wanting to marry, their views hold more weight for me.

    The upending is that for the first time in human (or should I say NZ) history marriage would no longer be between a man and a woman.

    It’s hard to see how that’s really much of an upending, though. As you said yourself only “a very small subset of a small subset desire marriage”. You have also emphasised how much there is virtually no difference between civil unions and marriage.

    So, according to your own argument, only a very small subset of a small subset of society would want to take up this marriage option, and even then the rights and obligations they have will be identical to what they have now. This is upheaval?

    Finally on the institution of marriage the core of it has remained unchanged and in all of the different ways that people court, of how families approve of marriage, the ages at which people marry, the ease of divorce – these are all peripheral to the institution and in all these changes, until now, no society ever considered modifying marriage to being between the same sex.

    I agree with eszett: you concede a lot of significant changes in your claim to an unchanged institution. For example, if marriage is important, then divorce is an equally important aspect, being the ending of the said important institution. So the first changes to the options for divorce would seem to be really upending the institution.
    And if we accept the “no society ever considered modifying X” argument, then no society would ever change, as, prior to the first time a society considered changing something, no society would have considered changing it, by definition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. eszett (2,357 comments) says:

    @KIA,

    the figure in AIDS magazine is not what you make out it to be,
    It means that the average length of a steady relationship for the purposes of the study was 1.5 years.
    The study was not about the length of gay relationships at all but how stable relationships decrease the infection rate of HIV.

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

    The book you quote from Amazon is published 1986 and “a wide-ranging collection of articles on “normal” and “abnormal” sexual practices in western society”. A bit out of date.

    I don’t dispute that homosexuals, especially male homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals, simply because men and men regardless of orientation. However to describe than as just constantly out for sex all their lives and unable to maintain relationships over a longer period of time is just false.

    If you look at the data that stats nz supply there were 377 Civil Unions in NZ (They don’t seem to have updated their info page)

    http://www.stats.govt.nz/~/media/Statistics/Browse%20for%20stats/MarriagesCivilUnionsandDivorces/HOTPYeDec11/mcud-dec11-all-tables.xls

    For simplicity I have added in the opposite sex CUs to marriages.

    Year s-s CU Marriages
    2005 227 20521
    2006 348 21505
    2007 320 21567
    2008 325 22028
    2009 292 21706
    2010 256 21022
    2011 301 20307

    Numbers are between a 1.65% and 1.11% of marriages with 2011 being 1.48%
    If we use the 3% number as the population the only thing we can conclude is that gays are marrying at a lower rate than straight people.
    If they were at the same rate, we would expect a 3% CU to marriage ratio.

    Still the ratio was steady and increasing (mostly due to marriages falling over the last 3 years)

    There is a steady demand for same sex unions, legalising same sex marriage would surely increase this, if anything.

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

    Bob McCroskie & Co’s petition of ’19,928′ signatures is full of fake names, including the cast of Friends, The Wire, Jesus, Madonna, Tony Soprano and more.

    I’ve counted a large number of fake names, and despite the protestations on their facebook page that they are checking for double ups and fake signatures, they are not.

    They also delete comments from anyone who points this out.

    I am no fan of the NZ Herald but they have reached new lows by publishing Bob McCroskie’s press release without fack checking. It’s ridiculous.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10825465

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. ChardonnayGuy (1,179 comments) says:

    Just a little confused about why conservative Catholics would support a referendum against marriage equality, given that binding citizens referenda have been used to introduce or maintain access to euthanasia in the United States and Switzerland in several cases…???

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.