Religion and same sex marriage

August 27th, 2012 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

This may surprise some, but I actually have a great degree of respect for people of faith and religions.

I believe that Christianity has overall been a force for good in society. I also believe the same of many (not all) other religions such as Buddhism.

While my personal level of faith is not strong, my preference if I get married would be to do it in the Anglician Church I was baptised into. Also if I had children, my preference would be to baptise them, and have them attend church until they are at an age where they can decide for themselves if they wish to continue. Those preferences are not strong ones, and any future Mrs Farrar would decide if they felt strongly for or against.

I respect that marriage has been a religious ceremony for over 2,000 years, albeit not exclusively. In ancient Rome it was very much a legal and religious obligation. In recent times many people marrying have not been religious at all.

Out of respect for various religions, my ideal situation would be to have the state not involved in defining who can or can not marry. I would have the state register partnerships between people for legal recognition, and reserve the term marriage for religions. This means someone could register a partnership with the state, and then if they wanted to they could also have it recognized as a marriage by (for example) the Catholic Church.

Churches could decide amongst themselves whether or not they recognise each other’s marriages. Hopefully none of them would recognise a Scientology marriage :-)

This viewpoint is quite common with classical liberals, and I know a few MPs who have a pretty similar view.

However as John Key said recently, when you come into politics you don’t start with a blank slate of paper. You start with New Zealand the way it is today.

The reality is that marriage has also been a state institution for hundreds of years. Marriage is recognised by international agreements in pretty much every country on earth. If an MP wants to put up a “Repeal of Marriage Act”, vesting the title in religions – I’d support that. I don’t think it would get many votes though, and would clash with international agreements.

Hence we are left with the fact that for the foreseeable future, marriage is going to remain a state institution, and the question is should the state deny that institution to same sex couples. Saying you won’t vote for , because you think the state shouldn’t decide who can get married is, with respect, a bit of a cop out. The state does decide, and that is never likely to change.

The Marriage Act already explicitly states (s29) that “a marriage licence shall authorise but not oblige any marriage celebrant to solemnise the marriage to which it relates“. No church or celebrant can be forced to perform a marriage ceremony that they don’t want to, such as a same sex marriage – a view confirmed by the Human Rights Commission. This means that religions keep their autonomy over recognizing marriage, but that the state (if the bill passes) does not itself block same sex couples from marrying. It is the best and fairest position for those who think the state should not be involved in marriage.

Tags:

140 Responses to “Religion and same sex marriage”

  1. iMP (2,385 comments) says:

    DPF, I disagree with you, and here’s one reason:

    Wall argues her bill will not force churches to conduct same-sex marriages or affront their two-thousand-year-old values. But this is untrue. The bill as it stands will confuse marriage (and divide the community) by creating several ‘classes’ of marriage:

    Legal Civil Unions (not marriages).
    Legal traditional church/other religious/cultural marriages recognised by the State.
    Legal same-sex marriages recognised by the State but unrecognised culturally by churches & some cultures.
    This is a very serious division, as it puts groups within the community at odds with each other under law.

    There are more serious concerns, but I’ll showcase those in STUFF shortly. I value your opinion and perspectives and the respect with which you conduct these difficult debates. I hope you ‘come over’ during the parl. debates which will highlight many shortcomings of Louisa Wall’s culturally-redefining bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. minto57 (197 comments) says:

    This all about word theft gay wish to steal the word from the happy

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

    I would have thought there would be –

    • De facto relationships – WINZ etc recognise you as a couple after three months co-habitation, unless you tell them to bugger off
    • Civil unions
    • Marriages – heterosexual or same sex – at venues other than churches
    • Marriages – heterosexual or same sex – in liberal churches [I suspect St Andrews on the Terrace will be one, St Matthew-in-the-City, Auckland may be another]
    • Marriages – heterosexual only – in all churches

    Gay couple will have all these except the last

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. SteveO (76 comments) says:

    “Legal same-sex marriages recognised by the State but unrecognised culturally by churches & some cultures.”

    iMP, this one won’t be an issue as Section 56 of the Marriage Act is not being touched by the new bill so it will remain an offence to allege “expressly or by implication, that any persons lawfully married are not truly and sufficiently married’.

    So churches and cultures will be unable to “unrecognise” single sex marriages. I’m uncertain as to whether I think that is a good or bad thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    Will Catholic Churches and Catholic schools be allowed to teach their view of sexuality and marriage in 10 years without being charged with hate crimes?

    I wouldn’t wager any serious money on it.

    Remember, the gay lobby doesn’t just want marriage. They want cultural assent to their beliefs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Pete Macaulay (47 comments) says:

    Thanks for a sensible well balanced view on the contentious issue. As a Christian I am embarrassed by the vitriol aimed by a minute group of my brethren at gay people. Christians are commanded to love the sinner, hate the sin. Since we are all sinners, we have no right to claim someone else’s sin is worse than our own.
    On the other hand I am offended by a small part of the gay community lobbing insults at Christians.
    For me, I have no issue with gay couples wanting to have their relationships on the same legal plane as straight couples. I do struggle with them using the term “marriage”, but your explanation of the difference between the state and religious views covers that well.
    I have no issue with gay clergy, but they are not to claim to be free of sin!
    By the way, my definition of sin is anything which separates us from each other or from the love of God.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Lance (2,655 comments) says:

    @EWS
    Then to make same sex marriage compulsory for all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    Also, from the HRC:

    “When religious organisations provide goods or services or accommodation to the public they are held to the same non-discrimination standards as others. “If a church rents out its hall to members of the public it would be unlawful to refuse to rent the hall to a same-sex couple because of their sexual orientation”.”

    Catholic schools and churches will have to stop letting out their halls because they hold the simple belief that marriage is for a man and a woman.

    [DPF: Mike - under the current law they can't refuse their hall to a same sex civil union either]

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

    In what way will marriage certificates change?
    One assumes the male / female one will remain as is.
    But will same sex certificates allow a less confining range of partners, in that male / female marriages may not be between certain close family for reasons of breeding dopey children, and this does not arise with same sex couples.

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

    @ Pete. I would be skeptical of any church or clergy member that claims to be free of sin, in any context.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    @ Lance

    You’re missing my point. The gay community will not tolerate the Catholic Church (and others) publicly rejecting SSM.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Andrei (2,657 comments) says:

    Marriage is recognised by international agreements in pretty much every country on earth.

    Don’t see Nigel and Tim’s weeding certificate being recognized in Riyadh anytime in the near future, whereas mine was and it was a matter of some importance to the Authorities that it was sighted

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

    Andrei

    Are arranged marriages legitimate?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    stevo 1246 and ews 1253

    section 56 looks interesting.

    So if I were to say that “same sex marriage” is a non sense,an absurdity ,there’s no such thing after this becomes law,I am commiting an offence?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Andrei (2,657 comments) says:

    Are arranged marriages legitimate?

    Provided both parties to the marriage consent to it yes

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. pedrogarcia (52 comments) says:

    “The bill as it stands will confuse marriage (and divide the community) by creating several ‘classes’ of marriage”

    No, I think it will just create a new class of church – small, backward and increasingly irrelevant.

    Same thing happened with pro-segregation churches in the American South. But they too died out eventually.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. eszett (2,410 comments) says:

    I would have the state register partnerships between people for legal recognition, and reserve the term marriage for religions.

    Eh, why? Why can you not have a non-religious marriage? We do today.
    Why should the state registered partnership not be called marriage?

    Muslim, Buddist, Catholic, Anglican, Protestant, Scientologist marriage are all okay, but a state marriage is not?

    That’s a rather odd position.

    Marriage is NOT an exclusively religious institution, nor should it be.

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

    It’s hard to believe this exercises so many people. Who really cares?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    @ pedrogarcia

    Actually, I think you’ll find that the number of practicing Catholics in NZ is growing. And will certainly be bigger in another few generations. As opposed latter twentieth-century liberals who have had fewer children (or no children) and will probably gas their parents if they cost them too much.

    The Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years and has faced off against tougher challenges than the Louisa Walls and DPFs of the world.

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

    I couldn’t give a fish’s little wriggle if some archaic old club founded on superstition and myth recognises or gives me a marriage ceremony. What I do give a shit about is whether the state removes discrimination from its statutes based on sexual orientation. The market can decide whether or not discriminatory churches will survive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    But the point is actually that it’s not about the Church vs the world. The point is that the redefinition of marriage is unhelpful for all of us and will be damaging for the those who are already confused about their sexuality and for children growing up in households without fathers (or mothers) because of their parents’ attempts to re-engineer nature.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. berend (1,709 comments) says:

    DPF: No church or celebrant can be forced to perform a marriage ceremony that they don’t want to

    Yeah, that’s how they started in The Netherlands too. Look at the situation 10 years later. Remember, this is not about marriage, this is about changing the social norms and suppressing every view of disapproval.

    How is it not about marriage? Just graph the same sex marriages in The Netherlands. Notice the downward trend? Within 20 years, there won’t be any same sex marriage in The Netherlands.

    Not accepting homosexuality will be the severest form of crime: discrimination. If you have a venue for hire, don’t think you will be allowed not to rent it to same sex couples for their wedding. You will be ferreted out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. KiwiGreg (3,255 comments) says:

    “Also if I had children, my preference would be to baptise them, and have them attend church until they are at an age where they can decide for themselves if they wish to continue. ”

    Surely the logical approach would be NOT to “baptise” them, force them to attend church until they hate it and decide not to and instead let them make their own decisions when they are old enough.

    Given your views what you state here is the height of hyprocrisy.

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

    If you have a venue for hire, don’t think you will be allowed not to rent it to same sex couples for their wedding. You will be ferreted out.

    berend, that is already prohibited today – the use of the term wedding vs civil union is not material to the prohibition on discrimination as it already exists.

    From the HRC website:

    When religious organisations provide goods or services or accommodation to the public they are held to the same non-discrimination standards as others. “If a church rents out its hall to members of the public it would be unlawful to refuse to rent the hall to a same-sex couple because of their sexual orientation”.

    http://www.hrc.co.nz/2012/religious-ministers’-choice-who-they-marry

    So churches that rent facilities (such as halls) are already prevented from discriminating against same sex unions in their use.

    That does not apply for facilities or services they do not hire/charge for – e.g. use of the church itself for a wedding ceremony, or performance of the ceremony by the religious minister

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Lance (2,655 comments) says:

    @EWS
    My point was sarcasm. Re Homosexuals….
    400 years ago they would have been burned at the stake for it.
    200 years ago they would have been hung for it.
    150 years ago they would have been flogged for it
    100 years ago they would have been jailed for a very long time
    40 years ago they would have jailed
    20 years ago it was legal
    Now same sex marriage is on the cards
    Nek Minnut it will be compulsory

    NB for those about to refute.. Yesssssss I know the time line is rough, don’t be so… anal …. about it :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. garethw (205 comments) says:

    “I respect that marriage has been a religious ceremony for over 2,000 years, albeit not exclusively”

    Marriage has been an institution long before any of the current major religions – it’s existed throughout all recorded history across all sorts of cultures. So “reserving the term marriage for religions” is rather nonsensical, why should they claim authority over a deeply human cultural artifact?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. berend (1,709 comments) says:

    To backup my claim that marriage in itself is not the goal, here a quote from a Dutch newspaper that marriage was just a step:

    In een interview met het ANP zegt COC-voorzitter Vera Bergkamp dat in Nederland nu wettelijk alles prima is geregeld. „Maar totale sociale acceptatie is onze volgende stap.”

    Translation:

    In an interview with ANP (Dutch AP) COC-chairman Vera Bergkamp says that in The Netherlands all legal issues are perfectly settled. „But total social acceptance is our next step.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. berend (1,709 comments) says:

    And obviously schools are a big target. Gays don’t propgate in case you hadn’t noticed. So they have to recruit in schools. Schools are required to teach to educate children about same gender sexuality. So we’ll get that here too obviously.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. iMP (2,385 comments) says:

    Several people are already being prosecuted in canada and USA for saying no to s-sex marriages based on religion or conviction. Now this today (from Bob McCoskrie at Pro-Marriage). This will happen in NZ.

    Marriage commissioners must wed same-sex couples (Canada)
    The Globe and Mail (Canada) 18 Jan 2011 The Saskatchewan government says “no” is not an option for marriage commissioners who are unwilling to wed same-sex couples. At least one commissioner says the province will have to fire him if that’s the case. Justice Minister Don Morgan says marriage commissioners are getting letters informing them…

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

    To backup my claim that marriage in itself is not the goal, here a quote from a Dutch newspaper that marriage was just a step:

    To back up your claim about a huge number of people, here’s a quote from just one!

    Name a group you identify with. I’ll see how long it takes me to find a quote.

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

    The Globe and Mail (Canada) 18 Jan 2011 The Saskatchewan government says “no” is not an option for marriage commissioners who are unwilling to wed same-sex couples. At least one commissioner says the province will have to fire him if that’s the case. Justice Minister Don Morgan says marriage commissioners are getting letters informing them…

    That’s because they’re acting in the capacity as public servants. Similarly, police officers don’t get to decide on the basis of their personal views whom to arrest and whom not to arrest. Religious marriage celebrants are different.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. berend (1,709 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull, I should have mentioned that the COC is the main gay lobby. I.e. the organisation that speaks for gays.

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

    Ryan Sproull, I should have mentioned that the COC is the main gay lobby. I.e. the organisation that speaks for gays.

    That makes sense. Gay men love the COC.

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

    …is a joke I bet no one has ever made before.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. berend (1,709 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull: they’re acting in the capacity as public servants.

    bhudson just above showed that this doesn’t matter. Any private organisation “cannot discriminate”. That’s the law. There will, initially, be exceptions for religious purposes, which will be dropped after a few years. That’s how it has been done everywhere.

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

    Any private organisation “cannot discriminate”

    No berend, private organisations cannot discriminate with respect to products or services provided for a fee. If they provide such things, as a matter of course, for no fee then they are able to make them available, or not, to whomever at their discretion

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Chuck Bird (4,889 comments) says:

    DPF and Key are happy for the debate to be on religious ground but not about children YOU’RE TEACHING MY CHILD WHAT?

    To many, the real issue is more about the normalisation of homosexuality combined with the garbage they teach them in schools.

    James Parker would not have left so many victims if it was not for these factors combined. Before I would consider taking any assurances from Key I would expect him to keep his promise on the anti-smacking law he did the flip flop on. He said, “If good parents are prosecuted for lightly smacking there child I will change the law”. Note he said I not Parliament. Well good parents have had there families wrecked because of he and he has done nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    If DPF must blog compulsively on gay marriage, at least he’s moving into interesting territory.

    He is quite correct to point out that marriage is not, and never has been, an institution that was the property of any one religion, church or sect. It is in fact, a nearly universal institution recognised by most political entities – as DPF argues.

    However, and this is the big objection to SSM from a small-government perspective, marriage has never been viewed as a creation of the state, but always a pre-political institution recognised by the state as an already existing norm. To this extent, marriage was always been considered ‘privatised’. It wasn’t until the Victorian era that the notion that marriages needed to be licensed that a state official was inserted into the mix. Up and until that point, however, the state had almost always recognised marriage in its traditional form. Marriage was thus part a central part of “civil society” – the vital segment of life outside of the state that organically regulated society.

    What gay marriage advocates do (though they hardly started the process) is to impose on this evolved institution the brute force of the positive law of the state. When the state decrees that, from now on, normatively barren classes of couples will be able to marry it is annexing and subjugating an institution older than itself.

    Now, if you’re a socialist or not disposed to small government, I can see why you would have absolutely no problem with this. After all, what’s the difference between subjugating traditional norms and subjugating markets in the quest for a homogenised, exclusively rational society of enforced equality of outcome?

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

    What gay marriage advocates do (though they hardly started the process) is to impose on this evolved institution the brute force of the positive law of the state.

    It’s not really, Cato. It’s the state recognising that the institution has evolved further. It’s not inventing lifelong romantic commitments of same-sex couples; it’s recognising them, and “lifelong romantic commitment” is what marriage has evolved to mean.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Manolo (13,780 comments) says:

    I expect an unexpected coming out of the closet any time soon: Scott Chris taking Luke to the altar.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Grant Michael McKenna (1,160 comments) says:

    When John Key said that bit about politics not starting with a blank sheet of paper but “New Zealand the way it is”, I thought of “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte” {Karl Marx, 1852}:
    “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language. “

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

    Don’t see Nigel and Tim’s weeding certificate being recognized in Riyadh anytime in the near future, whereas mine was and it was a matter of some importance to the Authorities that it was sighted

    Saudi Arabia being your ideal society, right Andrei?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Except that that can’t be the case. It’s like James Cook’s axe – you can only change something so much until it is an entirely different thing altogether. Man may have evolved from apes, but they aren’t apes anymore. When marriage loses all rational connection to the regulation of child-bearing and become a mere ‘bonus’ for falling in love, it won’t be marriage anymore.

    And let me just say this. I am an orthodox Roman Catholic, but I have no objection to gay marriage as a matter of the secular law. I trust that there will be religious exemptions for the Church and, if there aren’t, then i trust that the Church will do what it did in the Communist era – withdraw its ceremonies from state recognition so that Catholics will have ‘two marriages’ – a contemptible civil ceremony in front of a state official and a religious ceremony that carries no legal weight. The Church will survive (as it always has).

    But despite that, I am cautious about gay marriage because, for whatever good has occured in the last 50 years, the unsettled nature of family life has indisputedly made lives harder for children. SSM will be a smaller step orienting marriage away from children than other social changes were (at least in terms of immediate effect) – but it is nonetheless a huge theoretical blow against the idea that the ideal means of regulating child-rearing is through marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Andrei (2,657 comments) says:

    and “lifelong romantic commitment” is what marriage has evolved to mean.

    That is almost absurdly funny – ever since the progressives started fucking around with marriage the lifelong thing has become less and less frequently observed.

    In these enlightened times close to forty percent of marriages end in divorce and the number of lonely middle aged people living by themselves has soared – a lot of them these days never married, whereas the proportion of people who married in a Grandfathers day was around 95% and they generally stayed married.

    How we allowed our culture to be hijacked by these people is a mystery to me but the results in terms of cultural degradation and human unhappiness are all too evident.

    Gay marriage is just another hijack and one that will see us as a people off – to be replaced by people who are made of sterner stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. eszett (2,410 comments) says:

    normatively barren classes of couples

    lol, more pseudo intellectual gobbledegook from cato. What the fuck does “normatively barren” mean? You just made that up.
    This is yet another nonsensical and pitiful attempt to tie marriage to childbearing. It is just tiresome.
    Nowhere is it stated that you have to bear children or even have to be able to bear children to be married.
    Lots of straight couples don’t and/or can’t. And yet, they are still married.

    Besides lesbians couples are not barren, “normatively” or otherwise.
    Neither are gay couples, they are quite capable of producing children.
    By the same method lots of straight couples also choose to have children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Andrei (2,657 comments) says:

    Saudi Arabia being your ideal society, right Andrei?

    No – I worked there for six horrible months a lifetime ago.

    The problem is, in the long term “gay marriage” may well lead to a New Zealand with a population that looks to Mecca when it prays because those that do will not be embracing this radical idea but sticking with the tried and true heterosexual version of the thing and raising lots of little Mohammeds.

    So 100 yeas from now we might well be living in a country where they hang “gays” from cranes in Manners Mall

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. eszett (2,410 comments) says:

    That is almost absurdly funny – ever since the progressives started fucking around with marriage the lifelong thing has become less and less frequently observed.

    Yes, damn those progressives.
    The battle cry of the conservatives:”It was so much better in the old days.”

    If anything is absurdly funny, it’s your posts here, Andrei.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. SGA (1,043 comments) says:

    @cato “Except that that can’t be the case. It’s like James Cook’s axe – you can only change something so much until it is an entirely different thing altogether. Man may have evolved from apes, but they aren’t apes anymore.”

    Yes, humans are still apes – very much so. You’re scoring an own goal if you want to use that particular example.
    If you don’t believe me –
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. eszett (2,410 comments) says:

    lol, Andrei, yes, the gay marriage bill will lead us to become a Muslim theocracy.
    Did I mention that your posts are absurdly funny?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    Marriage is the realm of parenting.Nothing else really compares.

    Other than those with medical conditions, virtualy all those who marry have children.Yes there is a miniscule amount who choose not to have children but they are an aberration when one looks at the statistics.

    Therefor Marriage is not a natural progression for gays as it offers nothing of any natural progression. If it does, I fail too see it, and no gay has pointed one out that I’ve been made aware of.

    I cannot see Marriage offering a gay couple any purpose whatsoever above what they already have – just themselves.

    Other than ‘victors justice’ – just two words – “We won” being chanted in a drug induced haze in gay nite-clubs across the country, the novalty will soon where off, and gays will move on to the ‘next big thing’ to seek out personal acceptance of themselves, as society already does accept gays and has done so for 20 odd yrs now. Gays would be the first to let us know if we didn’t accept them.It is gays who kill themselves and it is mostly the gay community whom they associate with intimitly, it is not the straight community.

    Nothing will change in gayland, they will still have to face the same problem each and every day that every human has had to face since time immortal – maturity.

    You may be able to con some of the public – but conning yourself is really what matters!

    Defying the allegation made by parents and others that ‘one is not born homosexual’ does not then mean that you are born homosexual!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    SOooooooo then.

    Why do child abuse court records show, that those who were sexually abused by Priests ‘go on’ to ‘become’ gay at a rate that is higher than those who weren’t abused.Lots of victims became gay – but why?

    Colin Craig is right – becoming gay has a lot to do with being abused one way or the other.

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

    @Harriet,

    Good bit of pasting there (from the other day.)

    So I’ll do you the same good service:

    Other than those with medical conditions, virtualy all those who marry have children…Therefor Marriage is not a natural progression for gays as it offers nothing of any natural progression.

    While it may be true, Harriet, that most people that get married do have children, being married is no requirement to have, or to raise, children. Your argument is specious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. iMP (2,385 comments) says:

    Regardless of whether or not Marriage is Christian or religious, the result of same-sex marriages being legalised in NZ (not actually a fait accompli yet) will be that religious groups will be persecuted by the law against their older beliefs and values, which are already at odds with the proposed law. This is the case in USA and Canada right now.

    A same-sex law will make some Christian values and beliefs ILLEGAL!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Griff (7,728 comments) says:

    Soooooo Harriet there is a direct link between going to church and becoming gay
    who would have guessed

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

    The problem is, in the long term “gay marriage” may well lead to a New Zealand with a population that looks to Mecca when it prays because those that do will not be embracing this radical idea but sticking with the tried and true heterosexual version of the thing and raising lots of little Mohammeds.

    Again this idea pops up that legalising same-sex marriage is the same thing as making it compulsory.

    Don’t worry, Andrei. I’ve got a copy of the Gay Agenda at home, and the timetable clearly says that that phase of the plan won’t be implemented for decades.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. my 2 cents (1,091 comments) says:

    Pete Macaulay (37) Says:
    August 27th, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    Like you I am weary of Christians and society and their faith, I wish they’d shut up as all the liberals do is use that as a way to get off topic and muddy the waters as they trash talk them.

    I actually have a big issue with “gay clergy” as it seems that they are like wolves in the flock, teaching lies about their God and his hope for humanity, (if they are encouraging people to choose the homosexual lifestyle or be lenient towards it) whether the people claim to be Christian or not.
    As their God of the their scriptures appears to be pretty clear what He thinks!

    That same God who you claim to worship above all else (unless you don’t? and then are you a Christian?) says homosexuality is an abomination.
    He states in Genesis 2/24/25 “a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife and they are one flesh”
    Jesus who you claim is the “Son of God” reiterated that as truth in Matthew 19.5 and Paul who wrote most of the New Testament reiterates it in Ephesians 5.31.

    Now is God a liar or do you know better?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. my 2 cents (1,091 comments) says:

    Griff (2,455) Says:
    August 27th, 2012 at 3:17 pm
    Only if you get buggered by a priest or fall under one who says it’s all right I should think!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. my 2 cents (1,091 comments) says:

    iMP (711) Says:
    August 27th, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    No IMP it will make ALL the classical Christian position on Marriage Illegal as they can’t recognise same gender marriage as same gender sexual marriage is forbidden in the first place according to their scriptures.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    Ryan Spoull#

    Marriage is a complex institution. It must do several things (and, from an anthropological and historical perspective, fostering the emotional gratification of two adults is the least important). It must foster the bonds between men and women for at least three reasons: to encourage the birth and rearing of children (at least to the extent necessary for preserving and fostering society); to provide an appropriate setting for children growing to maturity; and — something usually forgotten — to ensure the co-operation of men and women for the common good. Moreover, it must foster the bonds between men and children, otherwise men would have little incentive to become active participants in family life. Finally, it helps provide men with a healthy masculine identity based on a distinctive, necessary, and publicly valued contribution to society — fatherhood — especially when no other contribution is considered acceptable.

    Without public cultural support for a durable relationship binding men, women, and children, marriage would initially be reduced to nothing more than one “lifestyle choice” among many — that is, it could no longer be encouraged in the public square (which is necessary in a secular society). In fact, doing so would be denounced and even challenged in court as discrimination — the undue “privilege” of a “dominant” class, which is a breach of equality as defined by Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But discrimination in this case should be allowed — and could be under the Charter — in view of the fact that marriage, as a universal institution and the essential cultural complement to biology, is prior to all concepts of law.

    In short, redefining marriage would amount to a massive human experiment. Some experiments work, it’s true, but others don’t. Remember that an earlier experiment, changing the divorce laws, set in motion social forces that would not be evident for forty years. This new experiment would be unprecedented in human history, and yet we haven’t taken the time to think carefully about possible consequences. Instead, we’ve allowed emotion to sweep aside all other considerations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. my 2 cents (1,091 comments) says:

    bhudson (2,270) Says:
    August 27th, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    Harriets argument is not specious, it is correct.

    For the purpose of marriage whilst primarily is for the joining of a man and a woman so that they share their lives completely as “one flesh” the expectation is that society will renew itself through their union as a marriage between a man (Father) and woman (Mother) is the best environment for bringing up a child to repeat the same for their children and (the original parents) grandchildren.

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

    The fact remains that the majority of people do not bat an eyelid at infertile straight couples marrying. And that’s because marriage has changed to the point where it is, for the majority of people in our culture, a matter of romantic love and a pledge of lifelong commitment. That’s why there are already same-sex marriages, and this law change is simply recognising something that has already happened.

    The law change will not make it the case – it will recognise what is already the case. Railing against the legal recognition because you don’t agree with the modern notion of marriage is… The horse has already bolted. There’s another idiom for it, but it’s slipped my mind.

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

    For the purpose of marriage whilst primarily is for the joining of a man and a woman so that they share their lives completely as “one flesh” the expectation is that society will renew itself through their union as a marriage between a man (Father) and woman (Mother) is the best environment for bringing up a child to repeat the same for their children and (the original parents) grandchildren.

    And how’s that working out? I’d rather a child was raised by a loving, nurturing, protective same-sex couple than an abusive indifferent straight couple. Love, nurture and protection are the key elements – not which bits parents have between their legs.

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

    my 2 cents – Matthew 19.5 is a discussion about divorce, and only mentions an aspect a marriage in that context.

    Matthew 19
    3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
    4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator `made them male and female’, [ Gen. 1:27 ]
    5 and said, `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? [ Gen. 2:24 ]
    6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

    7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
    8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
    9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
    10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
    11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    I see the Human rights commission endorses marriage equality. Great. Hopefully then schedule 2 to the Act will be abolished and there will no longer be any restictions.

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1955/0092/latest/DLM292639.html

    After all this is about “equality” or is it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. eszett (2,410 comments) says:

    Harriet (456) Says:
    August 27th, 2012 at 3:00 pm

    Marriage is the realm of parenting.Nothing else really compares.

    Other than those with medical conditions, virtualy all those who marry have children.Yes there is a miniscule amount who choose not to have children but they are an aberration when one looks at the statistics.

    Harriet, you are aware that those who cannot have children and choose not to (even by adoption) would beg to disagree with your statement, that nothing else compares. In fact, you judging and insulting their marriages is pretty self-righteous and acrimonious.

    Also you surely aware that lot of lesbians couples do have children and gay couples can adopt and/or even have children.
    Very much the same way straight couples do.

    So you argument is self-defeating and spurious

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull#

    All parenting models call for a man AND woman – preferably Married.

    No parenting models call for two straight males – or two lesbian females.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. my 2 cents (1,091 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull (5,147) Says:
    August 27th, 2012 at 3:32 pm

    Nice try to deflect but all your question does is show people fail at marriage.
    Marriage doesn’t and properly entered into and shared together is the best practice/environment for children.

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

    my 2 cents,

    It shows people fail at parenting, because it shows that the essence of parenting is not being one male and one female. It shows that the essence of parenting is love, nurture and care. You’re right that abusive straight couples are not good parents. Because good parents are loving, nurturing and caring. That’s what “good parents” mean, and good same-sex parents do it as good as good straight parents and better than bad straight parents.

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

    • Russian religious activists have demanded Facebook be banned in the country over “gay propaganda” among minors and have launched a campaign to criminalize homosexuality.

    • The Moscow City Court has confirmed for the second time its ruling banning all LGBT pride events in the Russian capital for the next century.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. my 2 cents (1,091 comments) says:

    Sofia (360) Says:
    August 27th, 2012 at 3:33 pm

    Again Nice deflect but you (deliberately?) ignore the central premise of OT & NT scriptures that Christians hold so dear ( I presume Pete M does too).
    A man leaves his Father & Mother and cleaves to his wife and they are one flesh, note he doesn’t cleave to another man, nor does a woman leave and cleave to another woman.
    Jesus reiterates what God had said in Genesis about the most basic relationship in society.

    If what you have just done was deliberate that would be the same as lying, yes?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. my 2 cents (1,091 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull (5,148) Says:
    August 27th, 2012 at 3:46 pm

    Same gender partners will never be as good as different Gender partner/marrieds as they cannot bring all that different genders do to their relationships or to the environment for the children.
    Gender does matter, a man is different to a woman, you need both.
    First prize is what society should aim and encourage not 2nd or 3rd surely?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Andrei (2,657 comments) says:

    Here is how it works,

    Years ago my daughter was presented for her sixth birthday a copy of the infamous book – “Heather’s has two mommies”.

    The child who gave it to her was a classmate, invited to her sixth birthday party and who lived in just such an arrangement. We as good Christian people would not deny this little girl an invitation to her party nor deny our daughter the opportunity to attend this girls birthday when the invitation is reciprocated.

    But common sense and decency might suggest that lesbian propaganda containing details such as “sperm donation” might not be an appropriate gift for a little girl from a home where Christian icons hang upon the walls. But the cause must be promoted.

    And the same people tried to get the book into the school library claiming that all the kids books were hetronormative or something.

    Now here’s the thing normal people try bring up their kids to fit in with the norms of society, not to try and change society to conform with them. And we also try and bring up our kids to aspire to good marriages and children of their own, God willing.

    And people who do not want to conform with the norms of society want to undermine this and remake society in their own image.

    And so in kindergartens they force the reading of “fairy tales” where instead of marrying Snow White the prince marries
    another man and parents who object, feel uncomfortable get the message – FUCK OFF we know better than you. One father in Massachusetts even ended up being locked up for his objections to the teacher reading “King and King” to his impressionable son.

    Gay marriage is not about “rights” it is about corrupting and confusing the young over the issues of reproduction.

    It is evil

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    Ryan Sroull#

    Don’t be silly.

    It still takes part of one male and part of one female to procreate.

    Gays can’t ‘parent’ as both our of the same sex.

    All they are doing is loving, caring, providing and nutureing TOWARDS children – aspects OF parenting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    Andrei#

    “….And people who do not want to conform with the norms of society want to undermine this and remake society in their own image….”

    Agreed.

    Since the dawn of time, man has been classed as mentally stable if they haved followed the natural order of things without question or hesitation.

    Now in Key and Shearers time, we are now classed as having a ‘phobia’ if we do so.

    The gay community is evil and the government insane.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Griff (7,728 comments) says:

    You can not argue with stupid
    The arguments of the godly fall into the bin marked stupid
    1 Marriage is not only about procreation it has far more to do with the sex than the resulting offspring ask any honeymooners
    2 Gay people are human and make as good a parents as any other human. two dads or two mums is twice as good as one mum or one dad
    3 The church and the belief in god has no place within our legal framework we are a secular state for good reason. The only persons against extending marriage to gays do so under religious grounds.This is a religious belief and should not be taken into account when it comes to making laws.
    4 The sky faerie does not talk to you. if you believe it does there is medication and or therapy to help with your delusion.Repression of sexuality frequently leads to this sot of delusion there is help out there seek it .

    This is another battle where the church shows itself as an intolerant outdated legacy of a more primitive past.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. eszett (2,410 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (2,489) Says:
    August 27th, 2012 at 4:09 pm

    “Gay marriage is not about “rights” it is about corrupting and confusing the young over the issues of reproduction.

    It is evil”

    Quite right Andrei. Have you checked my link.

    Chuck Bird (2,488) Says:
    August 27th, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    YOU’RE TEACHING MY CHILD WHAT?

    lol, so Chucky and Andrei finally come out as what they are.

    A union made in heaven.

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

    My 2 cents – If what you have just done was deliberate that would be the same as lying, yes?
    ______________

    No, all I was suggesting is that Matthew 19.5 is within a discussion on divorce.
    What you suggest – lying – is like the Roman Catholic Church taking the account of Onan, in context a comment on the selfishness of a man who would not father children for the wife of his dead brother, and making one verse of that the basis for teachings on contraception. That is more like lying.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Chuck Bird (4,889 comments) says:

    “Neither of you have an issue with gay marriage, you just hate homosexuality”

    No, just the sickos who want to indoctrinate children and adolesents

    YOU’RE TEACHING MY CHILD WHAT?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. eszett (2,410 comments) says:

    No, just the sickos who want to indoctrinate children and adolesents

    What, you mean people like yourself and Andrei who want to indoctrinate children that homosexuality is evil?

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

    Same gender partners will never be as good as different Gender partner/marrieds as they cannot bring all that different genders do to their relationships or to the environment for the children.
    Gender does matter, a man is different to a woman, you need both.
    First prize is what society should aim and encourage not 2nd or 3rd surely?

    First prize is kids being raised by loving, nurturing, caring parents. I don’t care what sex the people who do it is. What is it you think that different genders bring to the situation that upgrades a loving, nurturing, caring pair of parents to perfection?

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

    Don’t be silly.

    It still takes part of one male and part of one female to procreate.

    Gays can’t ‘parent’ as both our of the same sex.

    All they are doing is loving, caring, providing and nutureing TOWARDS children – aspects OF parenting.

    Harriet, there is so very much more to being good parents than being able to shove a sperm into an egg that procreation fades into the background of irrelevance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. eszett (2,410 comments) says:

    Andrei#

    “….And people who do not want to conform with the norms of society want to undermine this and remake society in their own image….”

    Homosexuality today is accepted, legal and thus normal.
    Sounds very much like you are trying to “to undermine this and remake society in your own image”. Andrei.

    You constantly fail to see the irony in your posts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    “….What, you mean people like yourself and Andrei who want to indoctrinate to children that homosexuality is evil?…”

    It’s just not the natural order of things, and I would guess, most gays would agree.

    It should be spelt out to children that hetrosexuality IS the natural order of things and homosexuality is not.

    Only 1 or 2 rare species of animal practice homosexuality as a form of majority copulation. And that does not make it ‘normal’ in anyone’s language – moreso in humans.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Chuck Bird (4,889 comments) says:

    No, this homosexual marriage along with what the likes of you want to teach children make them more vulnerable to the like of James Parker. He was reported in 1999 and 2009 yet nothing was done. If his victims had of been girls there would have been far fewer victims. If people had not been worried about the label homophobe Parker woould have been stopped a lot sooner.

    Have you read what they teach? Do you think the gift Audrei’s daughter was given was acceptable?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    “….Homosexuality today is accepted, legal and thus normal….”

    It is NOT normal human behaviour because it is not the ‘natural order of things’.

    And before you idiots start saying that riding a bike has become ‘normal’ human behaviour, are you then saying that those who are in wheel chairs are practicing what is not normal human behaviour because it is a minority practice.

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

    And before you idiots start saying that riding a bike has become ‘normal’ human behaviour, are you then saying that those who are in wheel chairs are practicing what is not normal human behaviour because it is a minority practice.

    Hold on. Give me a moment here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Thrash Cardiom (298 comments) says:

    The problem is, in the long term “gay marriage” may well lead to a New Zealand with a population that looks to Mecca when it prays because those that do will not be embracing this radical idea but sticking with the tried and true heterosexual version of the thing and raising lots of little Mohammeds.

    Why? Are all the christians suddenly going to turn gay and stop breeding?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. civil serpent (23 comments) says:

    I think Harriet is saying that riding a normal human is like practicing in a wheelchair bike. No, wait a minute – practicing is not a human wheelchair, it is a minority bike. No – normal bikes practice in human wheelchairs. Or is it that minority bikes have normal human behaviour?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Griff (7,728 comments) says:

    It is NOT normal human behaviour because it is not the ‘natural order of things’.

    LOOK out in the paddock naked steers and they are humping. God must sort out his nature it seems to be more gay than his believers would like

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

    The problem is, in the long term “gay marriage” may well lead to a New Zealand with a population that looks to Mecca when it prays because those that do will not be embracing this radical idea but sticking with the tried and true heterosexual version of the thing and raising lots of little Mohammeds.

    Andrei is a gay-activist persona discrediting the anti-gay-marriage lobby by associating it with sheer blanket stupidity.

    Nice try, Andrei, but you do the equal-rights movements a disservice by resorting to such tactics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Thrash Cardiom (298 comments) says:

    Given homosexuality occurs ‘naturally’ in around 1 – 2 percent of the human population, I think that it is definitely in the Natural Order Of Things. It’s just a bit further down the list than other items.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    “…..It’s just a bit further down the list than other items…..”

    Like suicide?

    Idiot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Thrash Cardiom (298 comments) says:

    “…..It’s just a bit further down the list than other items…..”

    Like suicide?

    Idiot.

    From such as yourself, that’s a compliment rather than an insult.

    Cheers

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Thrash Cardiom (298 comments) says:

    Sorry, Harriet, but you and others do waffle on about the Natural Order Of Things and homosexuality does occur naturally in not only the human population but in other species as well. It is a part of the Natural Order Of Things.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. KiwiGreg (3,255 comments) says:

    I think people in wheelchairs should be able to get married if they want, even to other people in wheelchairs. Even if they can’t have kids.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. eszett (2,410 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (2,490) Says:
    August 27th, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    No, this homosexual marriage along with what the likes of you want to teach children make them more vulnerable to the like of James Parker. He was reported in 1999 and 2009 yet nothing was done. If his victims had of been girls there would have been far fewer victims. If people had not been worried about the label homophobe Parker woould have been stopped a lot sooner.

    There you go again, Chucky, you love to conflate issue, don’t you?
    Pedophilia, Homosexuality it is so hard for you to keep them apart, isn’t it?

    If it had been girls, would you be making a deal out of his sexuality? Would you be claiming: “Oh look, straight marriage is making girls vulnerable to this guy”. Sounds stupid, doesn’t it. Just as stupid as you were saying about gay marriage.

    The guy is a pedophile and him being homosexual has nothing to do with it. Same way pedophiles abusing girls have nothing to do with heterosexuality.

    It’s just in your mind, where you just absurdly hate homosexuals, especially male homosexuals.

    So what do they teach your children that is so bad? That it is okay to have two moms or two dads? That it is just the same then having a mum and a dad? That there is nothing wrong with being gay?

    Again, only in your mind is that a bad thing.

    Again, the issue with you and andrei is not gay marriage, it is homosexuality. You say “gay marriage is evil” but what you really want to say is “homosexuality is evil”.

    Because once you accept that homosexuality is legal, accepted and recognised in society, i.e. it is “normal” to be gay, once you have accepted that they can have civil unions, it’s only a very small step to say gay marriage is okay.

    The notion that suddenly under this premises suddenly “gay marriage is evil” is just plain silly.
    It only shows that you have far more underlying irrational issues

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Andrei (2,657 comments) says:

    eszett – surely it is my right to raise my children, who I clothe, house, feed, and educate according to my ways and not the ways of others.

    To teach to cross themselves with three fingers, not with an open palm like the Latins do, and my girls to cover their heads in Church and so forth.

    And if I think contraception is WRONG to teach them that and not have it undermined in the school where I am forced by law to send them.

    It isn’t me being tyrannical here – it is the all powerful state that is

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

    eszett – surely it is my right to raise my children, who I clothe, house, feed, and educate according to my ways and not the ways of others.

    To teach to cross themselves with three fingers, not with an open palm like the Latins do, and my girls to cover their heads in Church and so forth.

    And if I think contraception is WRONG to teach them that and not have it undermined in the school where I am forced by law to send them.

    It isn’t me being tyrannical here – it is the all powerful state that is

    That seems fair enough to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Thrash Cardiom (298 comments) says:

    eszett – surely it is my right to raise my children, who I clothe, house, feed, and educate according to my ways and not the ways of others.

    You can only raise them according to your ways as long as your ways do not conflict with society’s requirements. For instance, if your ways were to include refusing medical treatment for your children in favour of prayer, society would come down on you like a ton of bricks – and rightfully so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Griff (7,728 comments) says:

    my rights
    by andrei
    The person who most wants to stick his god into everyone else’s rights
    Its wrong to indoctrinate your kids into a cult Andrei. One day it will be illegal and the world will be a better place for it

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. wat dabney (3,769 comments) says:

    Andrei,

    surely it is my right to raise my children…It isn’t me being tyrannical here – it is the all powerful state that is

    You bleat about your rights and your private life, yet you are more than happy for the “all powerful state” to enforce your prejudices on others and prohibit gay marriage.

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

    August 27th, 2012 at 5:45 pm
    my rights
    by andrei
    The person who most wants to stick his god into everyone else’s rights
    Its wrong to indoctrinate your kids into a cult Andrei. One day it will be illegal and the world will be a better place for it

    Not while I’m around.

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

    ………………………..Andrei Says:

    August 27th, 2012 at 1:13 pm
    Are arranged marriages legitimate?

    Provided both parties to the marriage consent to it yes………………………………………………

    Is an arranged marriage legitimate where one party does not consent?

    Arranged marriages through the ages make an absolute mockery of all your claims re the sancitity of marriage. The marriage ceremoney has been used for centuries as a business transaction and to aid alliances, especially by European christians.

    So please explain why all of a sudden marriage become so important to you all when it has been abused in such a fashion for centuries.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. eszett (2,410 comments) says:

    Andrei (1,439) Says:
    August 27th, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    eszett – surely it is my right to raise my children, who I clothe, house, feed, and educate according to my ways and not the ways of others.

    Absolutely, Andrei.
    You can teach your kids whatever you like.You can teach them that Neil Armstrong never set a foot on the moon and it was all a show, if you like.
    Or that earth is 6000 years old and humans walked with the dinosaurs.
    Or that evolution is an unproven hypothesis and a grand conspiracy of biologist and other scientist.

    But you have no right to demand that state schools teach the same nonsense, if they are clearly that, nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. berend (1,709 comments) says:

    DPF: Churches could decide amongst themselves whether or not they recognise each other’s marriages.

    One more on this: this would be very quickly outlawed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Andrei (2,657 comments) says:

    Is an arranged marriage legitimate where one party does not consent?

    No it is not – it is a fundmental feature of Christian marriage that both parties must consent and that any marriage where one party has been coerced is invalid and would be annulled if it occurred.

    There is nothing wrong with arranged marriages, they usually work out better than when the parties choose themselves on the basis of being in love a la a Sleepless in Seattle scenario because that warm gooey feeling is conspicuously absent at three in the morning when the baby is teething and wont stop crying, the laundry is full of stinking nappy buckets and the oldest has just redecorated the living room wall with his crayons – all part of the rich tapestry of heterosexual family life

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

    Andrei

    You are avoiding the question

    The church has allowed arranged marriages for centuries for business purposes only. These marriages are a sham, 14 year old girls did not consent, they were sold off as a chattel.

    My point is – if the church has allowed this shit to go on for centuries how can they now say same sex marriages should not be allowed.

    You ask for arguments that make a point and when you get one you wank on about some fictional situation in a movie – from gross hypocrisy to disingenuity in a nano second.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. wat dabney (3,769 comments) says:

    Andrei,

    To be fair, it is also a fundamental feature of a Christian marriage that the woman should be stoned to death if she’s not a virgin (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)

    Anyone making a Christian argument for the ban on gay marriage must surely also advocate state enforcement of this law. It would be rank hypocrisy not to, and would simply reveal that person to be a bigot who selectively uses the Bible when it coincides with their red-neck hatred.

    Tell us, would you stone ‘your girls’ in such a situation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    To be fair, it is also a fundamental feature of a Christian marriage that the woman should be stoned to death if she’s not a virgin (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)

    Only if one is monstrously ignorant of the scriptures wat. Haven’t you noticed the lack of stonings lately? Doesn’t that tell you something? Of course not. Like any fool you pick and chose, apply monstrous ignorance, then fire. You seem so ignorant I’m not even sure you’re being disingenuous. I suspect you really truly don’t understand the Christian theology over centuries which millions apply leading to Christian behaviour today. Instead you, in your monstrosity of a mind, open the Bible to just any old where, take the first passage which leaps into your fevered imagination and spreads it over the net, like a child with play dough. I think I’ve pointed you before to google keywords in a vain attempt to curb your ignorance, so I shan’t bother again. Just rest assured wat, just because you think you’ve found a “fundamental feature of Christian marriage” doesn’t make it so.

    And my above comment applies to your second para, as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. eszett (2,410 comments) says:

    What’s your point, reid?
    That there are possibly things said in the bible which are barbaric nonsense and should be ignored?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. wat dabney (3,769 comments) says:

    And here’s Reid to bluster and bluster and then bluster some more, without actually refuting a single thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. eszett (2,410 comments) says:

    Andrei (1,440) Says:
    August 27th, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    eszett – surely it is my right to raise my children, who I clothe, house, feed, and educate according to my ways and not the ways of others.

    And more to the point, Andrei, it is, again, quite ironic, that you claim the schools indoctrinate your children, whereas in reality all you want is the right to indoctrinate them yourself.

    How dare the schools teach the children to have an open mind, be inquisitive, question everything and learn to think critically?
    It’s not indoctrination by the schools that you fear, it’s that the schools will teach your kids to think for themselves, which will undermine nothing but your very own indoctrination.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    And here’s Reid to bluster and bluster and then bluster some more, without actually refuting a single thing.

    No bluster wat, didn’t you read about the bit where I personally haven’t observed many Christian stonings lately. How about you giving us the good oil on those since you seem to hallucinate that’s what the Bible commands we Christians to do.

    What’s your point, reid?
    That there are possibly things said in the bible which are barbaric nonsense and should be ignored?

    http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/ntintro/OTinNT.htm

    eszett my point was made in my 6:38. How come you people never cite the principles of love, respect, kindness which the Bible is replete with? Or do you people simply have a superficial agenda?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. berend (1,709 comments) says:

    wat dabney, you can copy/paste from the internet. But can you actually read your Bible? Deuteronomy doesn’t say that at all.

    Have you ever read that section? It’s about a man who marries someone and then tells stories about her that she isn’t a virgin, which she had promised him when marrying she was. Someone is lying there. So we’ll just let the man telling stories about her right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. wat dabney (3,769 comments) says:

    Reid,

    The very point is that what the Bible says and what so-called Christians actually do are two very different things: a fact confirmed by your strangely triumphal “I personally haven’t observed many Christian stonings lately.”

    It is the selectivity of you fake Christians which is the issue. You claim Biblical support for your ugly bigotry but conveniently ignore anything and everything you disagree with.

    Anyone claiming to advocate a “Christian” marriage must include every teaching on the subject – which includes the one that says non-virgin wives be stoned to death.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    It is the selectivity of you fake Christians which is the issue. You claim Biblical support for your ugly bigotry but conveniently ignore anything and everything you disagree with.

    wat forgive me but your ignorance is towering and monstrous. Why don’t you bother to acquaint yourself with the thousands of years of Christian theology which EXPLAINS WHAT CHRISTIANS BELIEVE AND WHY before you launch your own homemade interpretation on those of us who understand it. Honestly it’s like a child trying to explain to a doctor that they know what’s really happening despite the doctor’s years of medical school and, most importantly wat, years of practice.

    I’ve already given you one link above. Google is your friend wat.

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

    reid

    maybe with your towering intellect you can explain why the church tolerated arranged marriages for centuries using young girls as chattels to appease business and treaties. How is the sanctiity of marriage viewed when children are sold into marriage .

    there is nothing remotely christian regards this practice . Now I know the churches are noted for their hypocrisy but its a bit fucking rich for them to say same sex marriages aren’t what marriage is intended for

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Andrei (2,657 comments) says:

    You are avoiding the question

    The church has allowed arranged marriages for centuries for business purposes only. These marriages are a sham, 14 year old girls did not consent, they were sold off as a chattel.

    What a load of horse radish, BTW Jerry Lee Lewis famously married a 13 year old and took her on tour to England in the 1950s which caused a stir at the time,

    But be that as it may, in these times of unparalleled wealth and the most benign times that have ever been we have become self absorbed and self indulgent and cannot imagine a time when people were old at forty and lucky to make fifty. But that is how it was, life was short, girls got married about 17 boys a couple of years older. They had to do this just to survive.

    A boy maybe is told he is going to marry that girl and she is told she will marry him- that’s the way it was for them, actually if you know history why it had to be that way for them – it was the world they lived in and they got on with it because they had too. There wasn’t any nanny state back then and the only “rights” anybody had were those they could hold via muscle. Girls for whom there was no husband went to convents, it was either that or starve and freeze to death, widows whose children were grown did the same. Big families were the only form of social security there was.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. eszett (2,410 comments) says:

    Why don’t you bother to acquaint yourself with the thousands of years of Christian theology which EXPLAINS WHAT CHRISTIANS BELIEVE AND WHY

    It’s called Sophisticated Theology™, and easily countered by the Courtier’s Reply

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

    Andrei
    Wheres the consent in all that ?

    I don’t need a history lesson.

    For weeks we have heard from the NZ Conservative troop about love and all the other horse shit regards marriage and how only two of the opposite sex can do this but historically it was Ok to instruct your kids to marry to keep the peace

    And it wasn’t the poor, it was wealthy who were used in this situation more than most

    So I take it from your comment that as a society we have moved on and things have changed and adapted -so this bill before our Parliament is just proposing an adaption tis all.

    Just like I don’t have to marry off my 14 year old daughter to an ageing nobleman to keep the lineage going.

    Things change, its about time you “christians” did and stopped being so selective regards your views.

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

    And Andrei

    By catholic doctrine my 14 year old daughter can marry it s only a bit of common sense by civil law thats makes it illegal until she is 16.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    maybe with your towering intellect you can explain why the church tolerated arranged marriages for centuries using young girls as chattels to appease business and treaties. How is the sanctiity of marriage viewed when children are sold into marriage .

    Paul if you’re taking historical examples you need to interpret them in the more of those times not in the context of today. That’s basic, isn’t it. So give me some examples of what you’re talking about, and in the context of the times they were done, I’ll interpret them. But I don’t see any point in pretending that happens today because we all know it doesn’t. So what’s the point of your argument?

    It’s called Sophisticated Theology™, and easily countered by the Courtier’s Reply

    eszett you’re claiming theology says x. Pointing to the evidence of today’s practice one can clearly see x isn’t happening. So something is wrong with your claim. Hence my suggestion you go and find out what the truth is. I’m sorry if you think that’s bullying you but hey, what can I say.

    Things change, its about time you “christians” did and stopped being so selective regards your views.

    That’s right Paul so why are you basing your arguments on ancient history? Or is it OK for you to be selective but not for the rest of us?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Andrei (2,657 comments) says:

    Paul; Just because you can get married at 14 or 16 doesn’t mean you have to or that many people do!

    If you live in a time and place where you will be lucky to live to forty you need to marry young and have your children young in order to be around long enough to raise them to a point where they can survive by themselves. It is a hard world out there = we have insulated ourselves from it – for now!

    History is going to march on, the owners of the future are those who have the most kids and that aint going to be Western Liberals with their gay “marriage” and unwavering love of abortion

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

    My point Reid – marriage has been use as a business tool for centuries, condoned by the churches. Now all of a sudden you have to be in love, be able to bred and definitely not be a homo to join up.

    My other point is times change, so if marriage could be used as a business tool in the past , why can’t it now be adapted to allow two of the same sex to marry.

    The sanctity of marriage which has been hammered to death by the anti homo brigade has in fact been bastardised by the church its self, so to use the sanctity of marriage as a obstacle against this bill is full blown hypocrisy on an Olympic scale

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Johnboy (16,597 comments) says:

    “Just like I don’t have to marry off my 14 year old daughter to an ageing nobleman to keep the lineage going.”

    Sorry Mi’Lord.

    If I and me peasant mates ‘avent been doffing our caps e’nuff to your Lordship and all, but forgive us we just didn’t realise that we wus in the presence of a Nob such as yourself! :)

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

    Last time Andrei

    Wheres the consent which you have harped on about ? Its just a business transaction not love

    Arranged marriages are still common throughout the world actually, just not common by your white bread christian churches so much – still common within hasadic judaisim s, even in the States

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. eszett (2,410 comments) says:

    eszett you’re claiming theology says x. Pointing to the evidence of today’s practice one can clearly see x isn’t happening. So something is wrong with your claim. Hence my suggestion you go and find out what the truth is. I’m sorry if you think that’s bullying you but hey, what can I say.

    Oh, bollocks, reid. You don’t need a PhD in Fashion Design to see that the Emperor has got no clothes.
    It’s just lazy argumentation from your side.

    And don’t worry, you couldn’t bully a mouse with three legs and a bad heart, but hey, what can I say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    My point Reid – marriage has been use as a business tool for centuries, condoned by the churches. Now all of a sudden you have to be in love, be able to bred and definitely not be a homo to join up.

    Paul, I predict the church I belong to – Anglican – will actually come out in favour of gay marriage. They’re undertaking consultation right now. I personally don’t agree with that approach, but that’s what I predict will happen.

    My other point is times change, so if marriage could be used as a business tool in the past , why can’t it now be adapted to allow two of the same sex to marry.

    Personally if any religion used marriage as that, I haven’t heard of it and I doubt I’d practice that religion since the sanctity of marriage has nothing to do with business or anything else apart from human love and as the foundation of the family unit.

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

    if you’re taking historical examples you need to interpret them in the more of those times not in the context of today.

    Exactly Reid – and it follows that you must interpret today in the context of today, not that of history. Ergo, the correctness of permitting same sex marriage.

    See, you don’t have to be anywhere near Syria to suddenly see clearly…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Andrei (2,657 comments) says:

    Paul – there is nothing wrong with arranged marriages.

    How many men in New Zealand and the West have married women for “love” only to find they have hitched themselves to gold diggers? Huh?

    Arranged marriages usually have a better outcome than marriages for your conception of “love” which is actually often “lust” or a fantasy from cheap chick flicks.

    True love between a man and his wife is something else entirely which withstands the trials that life throws at you and there is no reason whatsoever why this cannot be found in an arranged marriage

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. eszett (2,410 comments) says:

    True love between a man and his husband (or a woman and her wife) is something else entirely which withstands the trials that life throws at you and there is no reason whatsoever why this cannot result in a same sex marriage

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

    Reid

    I am presuming you are taking the piss with ………….since the sanctity of marriage has nothing to do with business or anything else apart from human love and as the foundation of the family unit…………………

    Your church allowed arranged marriages ,encouraged arranged marriages ( look at the royal family) and you have never heard of this?

    Selective again Reid, you have to take the good with the bad, us catholics have to put up with all priests are pedo’s and you want to ignore the fact that royal houses of europe were built on selling of their women off , tsk tsk

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

    Andrei

    I have been called many thing here but to accuse me of sharing your perversion in watching the like of “Sleepless in Seattle’ is fucking low and unnecessary, aaahhh.

    But seriously you are pulling yourself with that comment ….Arranged marriages usually have a better outcome than marriages for your conception of “love”………… you must be because Reid says they don’t happen anymore

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Chuck Bird (4,889 comments) says:

    The following is good reading for conservative who think homosexual marriage is inevitable. It isn’t and this article will show you that the promises of the liberals count for no more the their promises that civil unions would not be a stepping stone to homosexual marriage.

    DEFENCE OF MARRIAGE:
    Marriage, religious liberty and the “grand bargain”

    by Robert P. George

    News Weekly, August 18, 2012

    http://www.newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=5286

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Andrei (2,657 comments) says:

    Why are you so fixated on arranged marriages Paul? They happen, even in New Zealand in the 21st century, they are legal.

    Why not mail order brides, they are more common than arranged marriages and those marriages are legal too.

    Of course there are quite a few New Zealanders alive today whose mothers were war brides another venerable tradition that falls outside the sickly Mills and Boon concept we are being fed about gays and their desire for matrimonial bliss.

    One thing all these vehicles for a man achieving the State of Holy Matrimony have in common though is that they produce children

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    “…….a man and his husband……”

    That just does not sound right,doesn’t work,it’s all wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. eszett (2,410 comments) says:

    A matter of opinion, kowtow.
    You may not like it, fair enough, no one says you have to.

    But that doesn’t make it wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. my 2 cents (1,091 comments) says:

    excellent article Chuck, thank you, though I don’t think there are many conservatives here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. greenjacket (466 comments) says:

    Harriet and Andrei – I find it interesting that you do not mention the word LOVE at all as the basis for marriage.
    I really feel sorry for you.

    When I married, I promised my wife that I would love, respect and honour her for the rest of my life (a vow I am happy to say we have kept strong for 20 years so far!). I married her even though I knew we couldn’t have children. I guess that Andrei and Harriet think that my marriage doesn’t count.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    iMP wrote:

    Wall argues her bill will not force churches to conduct same-sex marriages or affront their two-thousand-year-old values. But this is untrue.

    Um, you’re the one not telling the truth. I can only speak about the Catholic Church, but unless canon law has undergone a radical revision and nobody noticed the Church doesn’t recognize civil marriage (or divorce) for anyone; and even if I was heterosexual I couldn’t force any priest to marry me in a Catholic rite for the simple reason my partner isn’t a Catholic and has no intention of ever becoming one.

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