Poll breakdown on same sex marriage
August 7th, 2012 at 12:00 pm by David FarrarColmar Brunton have kindly published the demographic breakdown of their May poll on same sex marriage. 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%.
Related posts:
- Poll Demographics
- Same Sex Marriage
- PM says gay marriage doesn’t affect his marriage to Bronagh
- Interracial marriage
August 7th, 2012 at 12:10 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 12:13 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Hamilton has they highest approval rate with 72% by far. Hamilton????!!!!
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 12:16 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 12:16 pm
So no problem putting the issue to referendum rather than polical elites deciding it among themselves.
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 12:19 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 12:19 pm
… sob … sob …
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Unscientific Campbell Live poll versus a scientific Colmar Brunton poll? I know which one I’ll be putting most faith in
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Absolutely not. Feel free to put your money where your mouth is and start a CIR if you feel that strongly about it.
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 12:27 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 12:29 pm
Hrm. I feel weirdly proud of my fellow Kiwis.
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Campbell Live will be a pay to vote style.
Vote:Therefore bias toward those who feel strong enough about the subject that they are willing to pay to have their vote counted
August 7th, 2012 at 12:41 pm
+1, hear hear.
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 12:45 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 12:46 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 12:55 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Yeah, I think anyone who has a gay son is unlikely to change their answer on that question, KrazyKiwi, whichever their answer.
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 1:06 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 1:07 pm
…..women are key swing voters”
Equality,nuff said.
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 1:09 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 1:11 pm
Meanwhile in Uganda http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/08/2012851807445585.html
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 1:29 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 1:29 pm
Boring !!!!!
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Who honestly cares?
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 1:34 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 1:34 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 1:47 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 1:52 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Women support same sex marriage by around 69%
Vote:BUM
August 7th, 2012 at 1:59 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 2:00 pm
“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:August 7th, 2012 at 2:00 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 2:05 pm
Yes, and the Mosque’s teaching is clear and simple that you’re not allowed to eat pork.
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
Mmmmm Pork….
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 2:09 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 2:12 pm
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.
Another Andrei classic!
Vote:Are they blasphemous as well? Or only heretical?
And is your church also heretical from their point of view?
August 7th, 2012 at 2:16 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 2:18 pm
And now there will be even more adult couples raising children. Yay!
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 2:22 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 2:29 pm
“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:August 7th, 2012 at 2:30 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 2:33 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 2:37 pm
@ Andrei well actually by a sperm and an egg, the specific man and woman haven’t been required for some time now.
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 2:38 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 2:39 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 2:40 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 2:41 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 2:42 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 2:58 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 3:00 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 3:03 pm
“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:August 7th, 2012 at 3:04 pm
Dick, signatures on an online petition don’t count for anything when it comes to getting a Citizens Initiated Referendum.
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 3:04 pm
I also think a binding referendum is the way to handle such a constitutional matter involving societal relationships.
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 3:04 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 3:06 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 3:13 pm
Yes Dick, Signatory #10 on that petition is named Donald Duck.
Riiiigh.
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 3:21 pm
boredboy – You’re probably right. It’s a common tactic to attempt to discredit petitions. Seems to be favoured by liberals and lefties
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 3:22 pm
LOL also get fukt, margaret thatcher and penis itcher all seem to be opposed
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 3:24 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 3:26 pm
The longer this debate goes on the more hypocritical, misogynous, intolerant and stupid the Christians look
Vote:So in some ways its a good thing
If bJesus was alive today there would be a verse that says…. fuck you Xians are a load of wankers
August 7th, 2012 at 3:27 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 3:29 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Andrei,
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:August 7th, 2012 at 3:29 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 3:32 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 3:32 pm
lol: Amanda Huginkiss
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 3:35 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 3:38 pm
boredboy – so just be be clear, do you support or condem defacing the Protect Marriage petition?
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 3:43 pm
The intolerant crap being published on here in the name of Christ goes directly against his teachings
Vote: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
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.
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 3:45 pm
“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
Vote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error
August 7th, 2012 at 3:45 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 3:47 pm
@ 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:August 7th, 2012 at 3:47 pm
“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:August 7th, 2012 at 3:48 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 3:48 pm
Jimmy – I don’t mind you asking but I’m not telling
Vote:Very happy to answer the same question in 10 years.
August 7th, 2012 at 3:49 pm
“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:August 7th, 2012 at 3:52 pm
Oh that’s cruel!
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 3:56 pm
“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:August 7th, 2012 at 3:58 pm
Good. They should be.
As they should be afraid of other labels e.g. “Anti-semite”…
Being homophobic is a bad thing.
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 4:00 pm
iMP,
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:August 7th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
The world according to RRM……now that’s abad thing. Telling people what and how they should think.Bad,bad,bad.
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 4:06 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 4:07 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 4:10 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 4:12 pm
boredboy – do you support or condem defacing the Protect Marriage petition?
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 4:19 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 4:21 pm
What always amazes me is how progressives mistake degeneracy for “enlightenment”.
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 4:25 pm
What always amazes me is how you, Andrei, mistake everything that you dislike for degeneracy
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 4:27 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 4:32 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 4:38 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 4:39 pm
“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:August 7th, 2012 at 4:51 pm
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.
Vote: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.
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.
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 5:24 pm
Pulling a Maggie Barry, are we?
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.
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:August 7th, 2012 at 5:26 pm
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.
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:August 7th, 2012 at 5:31 pm
pg Evidence for your last sentence please.
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 5:39 pm
kowtow
Vote:Go to a farm the zoo or watch some dogs for a few hours
fundies !
August 7th, 2012 at 5:42 pm
ROFL – marriage is supposed to be a once in a lifetime event and for life.
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:August 7th, 2012 at 5:47 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 5:48 pm
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.
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 5:51 pm
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.
- Philip Yancey, http://www.zadok.org.au/perspectives/issue73/yancy.html
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 5:59 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 6:03 pm
@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:August 7th, 2012 at 6:11 pm
So the animal kingdom is now the model for human behaviour?
Frogs spawn in ponds so what do you do at the pool?
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 6:15 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 6:22 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 6:28 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 6:38 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 6:58 pm
@ Komata – Tomorrow’s Schools was a school funding and governance reform programme.
Vote:Two mummies, etc?
- Are you talking history, or are you talking about your own zero-research conspiracy theory ‘history’?
August 7th, 2012 at 7:05 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 7:12 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 7:18 pm
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
Vote: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
August 7th, 2012 at 7:20 pm
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.
Vote: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.
August 7th, 2012 at 7:28 pm
Which begs the question… where the poll segmentation by sexual orientation?
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 7:30 pm
Why would we spend 11 million on a referendum when the public have spoken. Most Kiwi’s favour gay marriage.
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 7:31 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 7:32 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 7:41 pm
KIA – Any more sensible, evidence-based commentary like that and you’ll be sent to the homophobe sin-bin
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 7:48 pm
universal.
Vote: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
August 7th, 2012 at 7:56 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 8:01 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 8:05 pm
” 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:August 7th, 2012 at 8:13 pm
Conservative is just a made up word it really means idiots that cant look past the past and have a fear of change.
Vote: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
August 7th, 2012 at 8:16 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 8:20 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 8:23 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 8:27 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 8:34 pm
“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:August 7th, 2012 at 8:37 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 8:38 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 8:40 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 8:42 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 8:45 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 8:45 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 8:50 pm
*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:August 7th, 2012 at 8:51 pm
All the sheepshaggers I know are 100% in favour cause they know that their kink comes next!
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 8:51 pm
A 2000 referendum to overturn interracial marriage ban passed but a 2004 vote to remove segregationist language from the state constitution failed.
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 8:54 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 8:54 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 9:00 pm
Johnboy, welcome back but be careful. The force of G** is strong here, but His spirit is not.
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 9:02 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 9:05 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 9:07 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 9:10 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 9:10 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 9:11 pm
Just the SPCA JB regarding cruelty to the animal
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 9:13 pm
I always said “higher lambing percentage” reid!
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 9:15 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 9:27 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 9:33 pm
To save Gaia we should of course be encouraging gay marriage. Particularly in say Africa, China, India etc.
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 9:42 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 9:44 pm
JB
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 8:51 pm
Watch what you wish for we all know married ewes don’t suck
August 7th, 2012 at 9:45 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 9:46 pm
All the bloody bitches that I’ve married do Griff!!
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 9:48 pm
‘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).
Vote:Perhaps someone can explain why this could be so?
August 7th, 2012 at 9:48 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 9:51 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 9:54 pm
Treasuries Nasska
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 9:55 pm
Another case of WWW:FACTSOUTOFYOURARSEFORCHRISTIANS.com
Vote:KOWTOW was quoting stuff from there earlier
August 7th, 2012 at 9:56 pm
Catholics regard two to six as not doing the Lords work strenuously enough nasska.
Vote:
August 7th, 2012 at 9:56 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 10:00 pm
“I can’t imagine why.”
Surely not Reid!
Paul is a closet gayboy?
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 10:00 pm
“Whereas what attracts a man and a woman together? Is it sex? No it’s called procreation of the species”
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 10:01 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 10:02 pm
That video is classic JB! It enabled an enjoyable wet afternoon last year arguing the toss over whether masturbation was indeed murder.
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 10:06 pm
“Arguing the toss”
Your naughty but I like you nasska!
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 10:07 pm
Andrei has the most in here reid a close second with kowtow http://twitter.com/KiwibogKomments
Vote: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
August 7th, 2012 at 10:08 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 10:09 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 10:10 pm
“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:August 7th, 2012 at 10:14 pm
“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:August 7th, 2012 at 10:18 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 10:22 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 10:23 pm
Quite true Reid. Hopefully the Lord’s lab will create loose women, at very low prices next, to accommodate the previous invention!
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 10:41 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 10:42 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 10:43 pm
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:August 7th, 2012 at 11:03 pm
Still doesn’t explain why infertile couples are allowed to marry.
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 11:27 pm
Would you like to know what the social engineering plan is?
Sure, knock yourself out.
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 11:38 pm
So it sounds like Dime and Johnboy have done enough rooting to make up for the gays and lesbians.
Vote:August 7th, 2012 at 11:40 pm
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:August 8th, 2012 at 12:43 am
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:August 8th, 2012 at 4:50 am
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:August 8th, 2012 at 6:50 am
@KIA
We don’t. All sexes can have civil unions, but only heterosexuals can get married. That is not equality.
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:August 8th, 2012 at 7:25 am
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:August 8th, 2012 at 7:41 am
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:August 8th, 2012 at 8:14 am
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.
Vote:It is a fallacious today as it was then.
August 8th, 2012 at 8:30 am
@KIA, well it is surely good to hear some calm and reasoned agruments against gay marriage
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:August 8th, 2012 at 8:37 am
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:August 8th, 2012 at 9:12 am
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:August 8th, 2012 at 9:48 am
On those points KIA:
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
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.
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:August 8th, 2012 at 11:14 am
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:August 8th, 2012 at 11:27 am
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:August 8th, 2012 at 11:51 am
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:August 8th, 2012 at 12:00 pm
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:August 8th, 2012 at 1:07 pm
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:August 8th, 2012 at 1:48 pm
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:August 8th, 2012 at 2:01 pm
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:August 8th, 2012 at 2:42 pm
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:August 8th, 2012 at 2:43 pm
eszett
Here’s the link to the 3rd study cited
http://www.peplaulab.ucla.edu/publications_files/peplau%20%26%20amaro%2082.pdf
Vote:August 8th, 2012 at 2:58 pm
“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:August 9th, 2012 at 1:46 am
Andrei,
You mean like…
Same sex marriage is like trying to eat a steak with two forks
Vote:August 9th, 2012 at 2:01 am
kiwi in america
I know of heterosexuals who’ve had lives of “rampant anonymous casual sex” too. But they can settle down and get married.
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.
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?
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.
Vote: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.
August 9th, 2012 at 7:03 am
@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:August 10th, 2012 at 10:24 am
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:November 5th, 2012 at 1:33 pm
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: