Tex on same sex marriage

August 20th, 2012 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

is well known as Australasia’s leading political pollster and campaign advisor, for conservative parties in Australia, the UK, NZ and elsewhere.

Unlike Julia Gillard, who opposes , Tex is a prominent advocate of legalising in Australia.

On ABC last year he said:

MARK TEXTOR: I think Australians mightn’t actively support gay marriage, but I think they would accept gay marriage going through. Ronald Reagan’s pollster once said to me that there is no such thing as family values, there are only those things that are important to families – love, a sense of belonging, a sense of personal security. And if marriage consolidates the family unit, so be it. 

He also took part in a debate on the issue in June 2012. The participants were:

In this passionate and quite unpredictable debate, Professor Nick Tonti-Filippini lines up with gay academic, Professor Annamarie Jagose, in opposing the legalisation of same sex marriage while Sydney’s Lord Mayor and New South Wales Independent politician Clover Moore is aligned with conservative party pollster and political strategist Mark Textor, in arguing passionately that same sex marriage should be legalised.

One quote: You can not believe in one law for all for some issues and for some people, but not for same sex couples.

Tags: ,

99 Responses to “Tex on same sex marriage”

  1. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    Is DPF waiting to come out of the closet and looking forward to his and his marriage once its legal?
    He seems to be consumed to an extraordinary degree over this issue

    [DPF: 50 demerits. You seem incapable of rational discussion on this issue]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Redbaiter (6,481 comments) says:

    People who defend the institution of marriage are not bigots and if Progressives think they will win me to their POV, or weaken my stance on the issue by calling me that, then they have another think coming.

    I am utterly sick of the self appointed Progressive Thought Police and their attempts to stigmatize and attack anyone who disagrees with them on this issue.

    Advocates for homosexual marriage would have us believe that the issue is about the “rights” and “equality” of homosexuals. This is a propaganda lie.

    The reality is that the push to redefine marriage is about demanding public approval and celebration of homosexuality. To accept homosexual behaviour as “normal”

    Unfortunately for Whale and David Farrar and Cactus Kate and their queer friends who are all so free with the word “bigot”, I remember the “Hero” parades.

    If that is what they call normal then they can keep it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. F E Smith (3,275 comments) says:

    I stopped reading Whale’s blog because he kept on wittering about this, seemingly to the exclusion of other, more important, issues. I don’t care one way or the other (it doesn’t affect me), but I am getting heartily sick of something that affects about 2% of the population being made to seem like the most important human rights issue of our time.

    It isn’t, and I, for one, have had enough of it. Change the law or don’t change the law. Just don’t try to tell me this is important.

    [DPF: With all respect FES, but this is my blog. Read it, or don't read it. I'd like you to read and comment - but you don't get to decide what issues I decide to comment on. If you are incapable of scrolling over a post, so be it.

    I blog because I enjoy having my say, and also because I seek to persuade. This is a current issue about to be voted on by MPs. I will blog on it as often as I think there is something new or relevant to say. Just as I blogged dozens of times on the Electoral Finance Bill.

    If you don't like the choice of what I blog on, then I respect that, and respect your decision not to read Kiwiblog. But don't complain on KB about what I choose to cover]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. RRM (8,994 comments) says:

    Unfortunately for Whale and David Farrar and Cactus Kate and their queer friends who are all so free with the word “bigot”, I remember the “Hero” parades.

    LOL you sad, ignorant, angry little fulla. :lol:

    The Hero parades represented the gay community about as much as YOU represent the New Zealand political spectrum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. RRM (8,994 comments) says:

    Seats in the front half of the bus are reserved for heterosexual passengers only.

    No, not an important human rights issue at all. Eh F. E. Smith? ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Andrei (2,431 comments) says:

    You can not believe in one law for all for some issues and for some people, but not for same sex couples

    What a load of bollocks – the law and custom say that anyone who is of legal age may marry an opposite sex person who is also of legal age, agreeable, not within a prohibited degree of relationship with you, and not currently married to anybody else.

    There is no “right” to a marriage – there is a right to marry provide you meet the conditions for that to occur.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    I second Griff and F E Smith.
    Tail wags dog issue….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. kowtow (6,717 comments) says:

    FES
    You shock me,human rights are for everyone,you nasty reactionary. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Akaroa (487 comments) says:

    What did Queen Victoria say about homosexuals?

    Oh yes, “They can do what they like as long as its in private and they don’t frighten the horses”

    No! Of course I know she didn’t, but I tend to agree with ol’ F E Smith on this one. This whole gay thing is such a boring timeworn stale yesterday’s issue now.

    I say to homosexuals, “Go ahead and f— each other silly if that’s what you want to do – but don’t try to mainstream your funny ideas on other people or expect me to treat you as normal’.

    Free country after all. For me as well as for you!! (Well, isn’t it?)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. F E Smith (3,275 comments) says:

    Seats in the front half of the bus are reserved for heterosexual passengers only.

    No, not an important human rights issue at all. Eh F. E. Smith?

    And if you see a sign like that on public transport, RRM, then I will change my opinion and join with supporting the movement.  Until then, don’t use false and hyperbolic examples to make your point.

    EDIT: What may or may not be interesting is that I commented earlier, that was my first visit to KB today. It wasn’t until 5 minutes after I commented that I realised that I had immediately moved on and not read the rest of DPFs posts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Matthew Holloway (19 comments) says:

    Accusing people who support equality of being secretly gay?

    Often Marriage Equality is compared to the civil rights movement. I’ve always wondered about one essential difference however, and it’s something that I suspect has held back the progress… how no one accuses a white guy of being ‘secretly black’ but in this thread and others a heterosexual who doesn’t have a problem with same-sex marriage is called gay. It’s tedious, predictable, and I’m glad that equality supporters laugh off those kinds of accusations now.

    Of course this video is essential viewing for the biological basis of homosexuality, and why discriminating against these people for what they can’t choose is discrimination: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSQSx3OCrXQ

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Keeping Stock (9,791 comments) says:

    Much as it pains me to agree (even in part) with Redbaiter, I am becoming increasingly upset at the way that this debate is shaping up. The pro-same sex marriage people are trying to hijack the public discourse, and anyone who expresses any opposition to the notion of same sex marriage is dismissed as bigoted or worse.

    What happened to our freedom to hold an opinion of our own? FWIW, I support the Bill passing its First Reading and going to a select committee for an extensive public debate on what will be a significant societal change. Beyond that, I am non-committal, and see merit in both the for and against arguments, given that I have a close family member who is gay. But to be labelled a bigot simply because I refuse to commit myself beyond that is not something that sits well.

    Perhaps those in favour of Louisa Wall’s Bill should seek out and read the old tome “How to win friends and influence people”, because at the moment they run the risk of alienating people who might otherwise have some sympathy for their view.

    [DPF: I can only speak for myself, but I have never labeled anyone against a bigot, and never would. I suspect most National MPs will vote against, and I count many of them as friends. I seek to persuade people as to the merits of voting for - not to demonise anyone who disagrees.

    The exception is when people make offensive arguments, such as claiming being gay is a choice. Then I'll have a go at them]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. RRM (8,994 comments) says:

    And if you see a sign like that on public transport, RRM, then I will change my opinion and join with supporting the movement. Until then, don’t use false and hyperbolic examples to make your point.

    You might have to do some smooth talking to convince me that it’s false, kind Sir. Or even that it’s a hyperbole…

    A Civil Union is almost the same as a Marriage, but then the back of the bus is almost as good as the front of the bus isn’t it?

    And any time a same-sex couple hands in a BDM59 form to DIA and the application is refused for no other reason than they are a same-sex couple, there is your sign.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. RRM (8,994 comments) says:

    Keeping Stock:

    What happened to our freedom to hold an opinion of our own?

    You ARE free to have an opinion, as others ARE free to tell you you’re a bigot for holding that opinion.
    But as a seasoned right-wing political commentator, surely you have seen this principle thrashed out several thousand times already?

    And this right of yours to speak out that certain rights, available to some, * should not * be extended to others… tell me more about it :-)

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

    F E Smith,

    And if you see a sign like that on public transport, RRM, then I will change my opinion and join with supporting the movement. Until then, don’t use false and hyperbolic examples to make your point.

    So where one sits on a bus is significant and important, but marriage is not that important by comparison?

    What about an analogy utilizing marriage? i.e. what if there was a different term employed to describe interracial marriages but all the associated rights were the same?

    It appears understandable to me that some people might be upset that while they are given equal rights in effect they receive them reluctantly while at the same time the state employs terminology that effectively says they are second class.

    Is it not fair of them to demand equality not simply in effect, but also in spirit?

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

    Is it not fair of them to demand equality not simply in effect, but also in spirit?

    So we’re using the law to tell people how they must think? That’s why I don’t support the bill.

    It’s important that everyone be equal before the law in effect and that job is done. The rest should follow society’s lead, not lead society.

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

    I am neither for or against same sex marriage
    Same sex couple adoptions may be another matter [of which I would like to know what a few psychologists would think, for the rights of, and effects on, the children involved]

    But I don’t see how gay marriage will destroy the institution ant more than the actions of Elizabeth Taylor, Rod Stewart, Tom Cruise, Pamela Anderson, or Linda Wolfe …

    Is DPF waiting to come out of the closet and looking forward to his and his marriage once its legal?
He seems to be consumed to an extraordinary degree over this issue

    No, DPF may just think there is a simple, intelligent, elegant answer to the question. And after multiple threads and thousands of comments [including the one I have just made] such an answer hasn’t turned up yet …

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

    Keeping Stock (7,988) Says:
    August 20th, 2012 at 12:53 pm

    Much as it pains me to agree (even in part) with Redbaiter, I am becoming increasingly upset at the way that this debate is shaping up. The pro-same sex marriage people are trying to hijack the public discourse, and anyone who expresses any opposition to the notion of same sex marriage is dismissed as bigoted or worse.

    What happened to our freedom to hold an opinion of our own?

    Does the freedom to hold an opinion require that others be silent and non-judgmental on your opinions?

    FWIW, I support the Bill passing its First Reading and going to a select committee for an extensive public debate on what will be a significant societal change.

    Significant how? Be specific please. What big almighty change is going to occur. So far all I see is that gay people will be married instead of in a civil union. Whooptie.

    Beyond that, I am non-committal, and see merit in both the for and against arguments, given that I have a close family member who is gay. But to be labelled a bigot simply because I refuse to commit myself beyond that is not something that sits well.

    “I have a family member who is gay” seems like a cousin of “Some of my best friends are black”. :)

    Bigot is a strong word and it is simplistic. It’s fair to say it doesn’t always capture the complexity of how someone views the world. Clearly you are not completely intolerant of homosexuals, you’re just not sure if they should be able to marry.

    Perhaps those in favour of Louisa Wall’s Bill should seek out and read the old tome “How to win friends and influence people”, because at the moment they run the risk of alienating people who might otherwise have some sympathy for their view.

    lol. It’s not a matter of if gay marriage will be recognized it’s a matter of when. This trend will not reverse because a few people debating the issue are overzealous.

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

    James Stephenson (1,038) Says:
    August 20th, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    Is it not fair of them to demand equality not simply in effect, but also in spirit?

    So we’re using the law to tell people how they must think? That’s why I don’t support the bill.

    In what universe can anything I said be construed as telling people how they must think? People can think what they like. The point is that the GOVERNMENT shouldn’t endorse it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. F E Smith (3,275 comments) says:

    Weihana,

    No, I don’t think that marriage is as important as fighting racism. You appear to have taken my point wrongly, but never mind. I have, here on KB, advocated abolishing state-sponsored marriage completely, so your attempted argument won’t work with me.

    I really think that you cheapen the fight for human rights based upon racial equality when you argue the way you have at 1.14pm. The fact is that, historically as well as currently, racial discrimination is more serious than the ability of homosexuals to marry. Racism is unacceptable and race is unchangeable, while there is still questions over the reasons for variations of sexual orientation (even among the gay community).

    Anyway, if you look hard enough you will always be able to find someone who is discriminated against, but to equate same sex marriage with what was, and in many parts of the planet is, the great human rights issue, is to me a poor analogy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Matthew Holloway (19 comments) says:

    What happened to our freedom to hold an opinion of our own?

    Freedom of expression does not mean freedom from criticism. Trying to label criticism as censorship is a lazy tactic.

    With something like 8/9 people under 35 agreeing with Marriage Equality it will happen and the only question is when. Those against it will be viewed by history (and by their children) as those who were against racial equality.

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

    In what universe can anything I said be construed as telling people how they must think? People can think what they like. The point is that the GOVERNMENT shouldn’t endorse it

    The government doesn’t endorse anything, Civil Unions and Marriages have identical rights and obligations (other than adoption).

    So this bill is one, or both, of:

    a) legalising gay adoption by stealth, because the gay community doesn’t think they can win a (excuse me) straight argument on that score.
    b) telling society they must view homosexual relationships as equal and equivalent to heterosexual relationships.

    Of course in several anglosphere right-wing places it is also:

    c) and opportunity to show just how cool and “right-on” we are these days.

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

    F E Smith,

    No, I don’t think that marriage is as important as fighting racism.

    Fair enough I suppose.

    Racism is unacceptable and race is unchangeable, while there is still questions over the reasons for variations of sexual orientation (even among the gay community).

    Questions sure, but there isn’t much doubt among experts that sexual orientation, for whatever reason, is innate and unchangeable. And this is why sexual orientation is very similar to race. People do not become adults and suddenly think to themselves that they’d like to have sex with the same sex. For many gays their sexuality is very obvious from early childhood and they often grow up in a climate of intolerance and bullying both by strangers and those close to them.

    Arguably this is a worse position for gays to be in compared with a minority race that is discriminated against by a more powerful race. At least members of a race can count on their own community and network of friends and family to support them even if the more dominant tribe in their nation makes life inferior to what it could be. But homosexuals cannot rely on the support of even their own family, let alone their friends and wider local community which may disown them.

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

    Trying to label criticism as censorship is a lazy tactic.

    As lazy as a knee-jerk response of “bigot” in lieu of any logical argument?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Keeping Stock (9,791 comments) says:

    @ RRM, Weihana and Matthew Holloway – I’m not suggesting that the same sex marriage lobby group ought not be able to criticise contrary opinions. But words like “bigot” are emotive and provocative, and easy to chuck around; rather like “racist”, as Hone Harawira did yesterday whilst berating Todd McClay for being blond and blue-eyed. The pro lobby runs the risk of alienating people by attacking those who dare to hold a contrary view.

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

    Keeping Stock (7,988) Says:
    August 20th, 2012 at 12:53 pm

    They do because they think they are right and we are evil to oppose their version of equality for “their” society.
    As we don’t agree with them, under the definition of their tolerance they should shame and browbeat us into capitulation until we do not speak up publically against their position.
    Nothing is worse than the liberal facista, don’t worry it is going to get worse yet.
    They will come after their supposed opponents at their place of work and residence both online and real world, just look at what they did to all those who supported proposition 8 in California!

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

    James Stephenson (1,039) Says:
    August 20th, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    The government doesn’t endorse anything…

    I disagree. Words have meaning.

    So this bill is…

    …telling society they must view homosexual relationships as equal and equivalent to heterosexual relationships.

    It isn’t telling society to do anything. The government does not endorse racism. That doesn’t imply that society “must” not be racist. The position of the state is not necessarily the position of the individual.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. BlairM (2,266 comments) says:

    You can not believe in one law for all for some issues and for some people, but not for same sex couples.

    Asking the government to redefine marriage by issuing certificates to gay couples with the word “marriage” on it is not “one law for all”. It is actually a law for gay couples that discriminates against people who believe marriage has a different definition.

    If you believe in one law for all, you are against the government redefining marriage. Gay marriage has been legal in New Zealand since 1986, and I support the right of gays to formalise their relationships. I do not support the government pontificating on the moral issue of what a marriage is.

    I’ve supported gay rights all my adult life and know where I stand. If you think I’m a bigot because I disagree on this one issue, then I don’t give a flying fuck.

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

    Another day-another pro gay posting.

    What you are asking is to change marriage from its definition that has stood since the beginning of time, to something else.

    And you want to change it by government decree. Government will redefine marriage.

    I hope this bill is soundly defeated.

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

    Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. :(

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

    Wiehana
    “Questions sure, but there isn’t much doubt among experts that sexual orientation, for whatever reason, is innate and unchangeable.”

    This is not correct as you well know.
    Homosexuality has not been shown to be innate (hardwired) into humans rather it can be changed and therefore is a behaviour.
    How one becomes entrenched in the homosexual lifestyle is up for debate still, up until the homosexual lobby (including homosexual psychiatrists) bullied the American Psychiatry Association in the 70′s by threatening to invade their meetings until they took homosexual behaviour out of the “big book”.
    It was accepted that homosexuality was an immature fixing of the sexuality of a person.
    Caused by aggression/abuse in the child’s environment or by same sex experiences either in pre pubecent or in puberty.

    All this can be read at http://www.narth.org.

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

    BlairM,

    It is actually a law for gay couples that discriminates against people who believe marriage has a different definition

    LMAO. The stuff people come up with.

    Ok, in all seriousness, such a law would not discriminate against the group you mention. People can get married regardless of their personal beliefs.

    I do not support the government pontificating on the moral issue of what a marriage is.

    Unless it is pontificating in support of your own views? :)

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

    Scott
    With the Prime Minister we have got and the MP’s we have I don’t think so at all.

    112 of them ignored +80% of the population, don’t get your hopes up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. BlairM (2,266 comments) says:

    I do not support the government pontificating on the moral issue of what a marriage is.

    Unless it is pontificating in support of your own views? :)

    I don’t support the government pontificating on any moral views. They should shut up and defend me and my property from force and fraud. Marriage is an issue between couples, their families, their churches, and their God(s), nothing to do with government.

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

    Keeping Stock

    A follow up to my reply to you and this is so called experts and professionals.

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/psychologists-blacklist-conservative-colleagues/?cat_orig=politics

    “In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists admit that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues,” the authors, Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers, wrote.

    “The more liberal respondents are, the more willing they are to discriminate.”

    The study was done by the two members of the Department of Social Psychology at Tilburg University in the Netherlands. They warned specifically that conservatives who fear harm if their colleagues discover their leanings “are right to do so.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Pete George (21,826 comments) says:

    Asking the government to redefine marriage by issuing certificates to gay couples with the word “marriage” on it is not “one law for all”. It is actually a law for gay couples that discriminates against people who believe marriage has a different definition.

    That’s a doozie.

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

    my 2 cents (930) Says:
    August 20th, 2012 at 2:02 pm

    This is not correct as you well know.
    Homosexuality has not been shown to be innate (hardwired) into humans rather it can be changed and therefore is a behaviour.
    How one becomes entrenched in the homosexual lifestyle is up for debate still, up until the homosexual lobby (including homosexual psychiatrists) bullied the American Psychiatry Association in the 70′s by threatening to invade their meetings until they took homosexual behaviour out of the “big book”.
    It was accepted that homosexuality was an immature fixing of the sexuality of a person.
    Caused by aggression/abuse in the child’s environment or by same sex experiences either in pre pubecent or in puberty.

    All this can be read at http://www.narth.org.

    Crackpots. I’ll stick with the mainstream view and common sense.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_change_efforts#Position_of_professional_organizations_on_SOCE

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

    BlairM (1,704) Says:
    August 20th, 2012 at 2:08 pm

    I do not support the government pontificating on the moral issue of what a marriage is.

    Unless it is pontificating in support of your own views? :)

    I don’t support the government pontificating on any moral views. They should shut up and defend me and my property from force and fraud. Marriage is an issue between couples, their families, their churches, and their God(s), nothing to do with government.

    A view shared by F E Smith which seems pretty reasonable.

    Although marriage involves shared property, shared interests and shared custody. These things tend to be regulated by government especially when there is a dispute. So it doesn’t seem tenable to proffer that government is entirely irrelevant.

    Though arguably the government could get rid of marriage and retain civil unions.

    edit: Although to be honest it does seem like a child throwing his toys out of the cot just because he doesn’t want to share.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. BlairM (2,266 comments) says:

    Weihana – I have no problem with government enforcing contracts, including formalised relationship contracts – whether they are hetro or homo.

    France has the very situation you describe.

    Personally I have no problem with the government issuing marriage certificates based on a definition of marriage which is older than any government. But I don’t believe that two dudes constitutes a marriage. And I think my opinion has equal weight to the two dudes, and I don’t think the government should decide between us as to who is right.

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

    my 2 cents:Homosexuality has not been shown to be innate (hardwired) into humans rather it can be changed and therefore is a behaviour.

    Biological differences between gay and straight people have been found. There is still no evidence that sexual orientation can change.

    How one becomes entrenched in the homosexual lifestyle is up for debate still, up until the homosexual lobby (including homosexual psychiatrists) bullied the American Psychiatry Association in the 70′s by threatening to invade their meetings until they took homosexual behaviour out of the “big book”.

    The APA changed its opinion on homosexuality because of scientific research.

    It was accepted that homosexuality was an immature fixing of the sexuality of a person.
    Caused by aggression/abuse in the child’s environment or by same sex experiences either in pre pubecent or in puberty.

    There were lots of different theories on homosexuality floating around at the time, including that it was biological.

    All this can be read at http://www.narth.org.

    NARTH are a bunch of christian crackpots. They misrepresent facts and cherry-pick studies and ignore the research they can’t spin away.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Chuck Bird (4,415 comments) says:

    “The exception is when people make offensive arguments, such as claiming being gay is a choice. Then I’ll have a go at them”

    The author of this book has a PhD in biochemistry. Is he or people who have read his book not entitled to their opinion?

    http://www.mygenes.co.nz/MGMMDIInfo.htm

    The proponents of homosexual rights are very interesting. They claim that I and others opposed to these so called rights are obsessed but it seems to me they are the ones who are obsessed.

    BTW – do you oppose a binding referendum in the bill make it to a third reading?

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

    He may have a phd in biochemistry but he has a poor understanding of genetics, and his book misrepresents facts and cherry-picks studies. There is research which came out which he doesn’t mention and not because of deadlines.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. cha (3,539 comments) says:

    Homosexuality has not been shown to be innate (hardwired) into humans rather it can be changed and therefore is a behaviour.

    So you’ll be able to tell me why drugs are being used on pregnant women to prevent lesbian, bisexual and intersex babies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Pete George (21,826 comments) says:

    Personally I have no problem with the government issuing marriage certificates based on a definition of marriage which is older than any government.

    What definition is that?

    And I think my opinion has equal weight to the two dudes

    Shouldn’t the opinion of two dudes have more weight than you? Or do you think they should have half a say each?

    …and I don’t think the government should decide between us as to who is right.

    So the government shouldn’t decide between you and them, and leave it open and up to individuals to decide for themselves?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. eszett (2,271 comments) says:

    BTW – do you oppose a binding referendum in the bill make it to a third reading?

    You cannot oppose something that doesn’t exist, Chucky. There is no referendum attached to this bill. Just like there is no referendum attached to every other bill that passes the third reading.

    Your question should rather be: “Do you support that the bill goes to a binding referendum after it’s third reading?”
    Which then begs the question, why should it?
    As opposed to all the other bills that don’t go to a referendum, what makes this bill so special that you think you need to spend taxpayers money on an additional referendum after that? Other that that you oppose it and want an additional forum to oppose it because you cannot accept the outcome.

    It also clearly highlights the problem with a referendum, you can frame the results by the way you pose the question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Chuck Bird (4,415 comments) says:

    Cha, The point I was making to DPF was about an educated person having a valid point of view. I find it a waste of time showing links like you have as homosexual activist are much the same a global warming alarmist.

    I do not have time to read study those links but they appear interesting. However, anatomical abnormalities are different than homosexual behaviour. I am not claim that they is no biological factor in homosexual behaviour but there is ample evidence that there are environmental factors including sexual abuse pre pubescent or pubescent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. eszett (2,271 comments) says:

    but there is ample evidence that there are environmental factors including sexual abuse pre pubescent or pubescent.

    Pulling the Colin Craig line, are we, Chucky?
    Not surprising, really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. F E Smith (3,275 comments) says:

     @DPF

    With all respect FES, but this is my blog. Read it, or don’t read it. I’d like you to read and comment – but you don’t get to decide what issues I decide to comment on.

    A point that is fairly made and one that I have made myself here on KB in the past.  I am grateful that you run KB and that you allow people like myself to comment here.  I respect you for spending the time and money on it, and for allowing a wide variety of debate.  I can, and do, scroll past posts that you make that don’t interest me.

    I simply gave my opinion.  I don’t in any way expect my opinion to influence how you run your blog.  If my opinion in some way made you change posting about what you saw as important, or even merely of interest, then I would be disappointed. 

    My comment was not meant as an attack on you or how you run the blog, although I can see how it can be taken that way.  If so, then my apologies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. graham (2,211 comments) says:

    @ Pete George at 4:56 pm:

    Shouldn’t the opinion of two dudes have more weight than you? Or do you think they should have half a say each?

    So you agree that the opinion of the good people at The Standard should have more weight than your opinion?

    How many times have you tried to tell them how to run their blog? And even when you’ve been banned, you’ve tried to tell people here to rush over there and comment as proxy for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Chuck Bird (4,415 comments) says:

    “As opposed to all the other bills that don’t go to a referendum, what makes this bill so special”

    I have explained before. I private members’s bill did was not in any party’s manifesto like the partial asset sales which the Greens ripping off the taxpayer to collect signatures.

    Very few private members bill make it to a third reading. I will be making a submission if this bill makes it to a first reading. It is possible my submission wil be accepted.

    You may not agree with me but that is my reasoning and many National MPs including Don Brash and Nick Smith argued for a binding referendum on the Civil Union bill so my idea could well have support on a similar bill. National is in power this time and NZF would support a referendum so it could happen and that would be democratic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    FES, I think you’ll find that the sooner same sex marriage is legalized, the sooner it will become a non-issue. May as well swim with the current on this one.

    On the other hand, if you are unequivocally opposed to same sex marriage then I guess that you and others of like mind are contributing to the disproportionate amount of airtime this issue receives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. F E Smith (3,275 comments) says:

    Scott Chris,

    I take no issue with it. Nor do I take any issue with polygamous marriage. Indeed, if the law is going to be changed to allow one, then I think it should be changed to allow the other. Why should Muslims and polyamorous people be discriminated against in their relationship practices?

    Sexual politics bores me. It really annoys me, however, when I read US, UK, Aus and NZ topical sites and same sex marriage is made out to be the hot topic, but in fact is really only affecting a small portion of a very small portion of the population. I think it is distracting from more important issues, but that is just my opinion.

    I disagree with your point, which seems to be that if you make a lot of noise then you should be given your own way. It goes along with the theory that if you have an minor political cause and everybody is ignoring you then you should kill people because then you will be negotiated with (PIRA, PLO etc). It seems to be correct, but I don’t accept that we should adhere to it.

    Anyway, my mistake was to mention that I am sick of the topic and to word the comment poorly. I am putting it down to a case of Mondayitis affecting my normal habit of keeping my mouth shut on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Andrei (2,431 comments) says:

    FES, I think you’ll find that the sooner same sex marriage is legalized, the sooner it will become a non-issue. May as well swim with the current on this one.

    This is anything but a non issue – this is the decadent elites, who are busy squandering the wealth of this nation, driving the final nail into the coffin as we commit suicide.

    See the fundamental economic activity that any nation or people engage in is the production of the new generations. To encourage this activity, we have marriage an institution that bonds men with women the point being that for the most part such parings are fecund.

    See if a farmer had a bull that did not want to mate with the cows but only with other bulls it would be a liability and it would go to the works. In order to maintain their herd, farmers need animals that can and do breed.

    Same with Nations really, if our culture doesn’t produce enough children then we have to bring in people from elsewhere to fill up the gaps and strangely enough the places they come from do not have a culture of tolerating homosexuality and as their numbers grow so will their contempt for the natives decadent and extravagent (with borrowed money incidentally) ways.

    At which New Zealand as a nation will find the number’s up

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Pete George (21,826 comments) says:

    graham, I don’t recall claiming having a dominant opinion, in fact I’ve always conceded a non-dominant opinion at TS, especially versus the moderators who hold all the power.

    I’m not sure what relevance your point is to this. If the biggest noise at The Standard was pro marriage equality would you accept that as how things should be?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Pete George (21,826 comments) says:

    See if a farmer had a bull that did not want to mate with the cows but only with other bulls it would be a liability and it would go to the works. In order to maintain their herd, farmers need animals that can and do breed.

    What are you suggesting Andrei? Should all homosexuals and barren females and spermless males and spinsters and bachelors have to “go to the works”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Reid (15,593 comments) says:

    Gay marriage is like the Iraq war before everyone realised there weren’t any WMDs after all. Gay marriage isn’t necessary since it deals with an imaginary evil just the same way the Iraq war dealt with one. Both were created out of the minds of evil people to be a problem sold to the masses of braying useful idiots under the guise of “human wights, oh dear, it’s tewwible, we must fix it [wring hands and burst into tears like a girly baby].” It’s surprising the fools can’t perceive precisely the same dynamics are at play but then, they aren’t called useful idiots for nothing, are they.

    Except gay marriage it’s a billion times more serious. Think the DU they used over Iraq that’s currently shredding the DNA of thousands of Iraqi babies and shortly will begin shredding your baby’s DNA as well is serious? That’s nothing.

    Imagine a world where your baby has no point of reference. Where your baby is bought up totally confused as to who they are. Like this: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065

    I don’t really see the point of discussing gay marriage with that subset of people who imagine the issue is a human rights one because I suspect they largely are the same subset of fools who thought invading Iraq in 2002 was a damn good idea because of all those pesky WMDs as portrayed by no less substantive people as Colin Powell and a powerpoint presso at the UN. I mean crikey. What more evidence do you need to invade a country and kill hundreds of thousands and incidentally, possess lots of oil, eh?

    I just wonder whether the only reason this issue has been talked up is because it appears to be one which makes inroads amongst the lefty’s perception that “Key is a nasty rightie” because the polls say the useful idiots who never think at all think that gay mawwaige would just be fine and dandy and therefore by Key claiming from day one he’s highly in favour then it makes him seem, well, more popular, with those who normally wouldn’t like him at all.

    And that’s why the gay marriage is going like it is, I suspect. However, we are talking about an institution thousands of years old, and it’s a shame to see the conservative rump of New Zealand cave so readily for such a cheap temporary gain, given what is at stake for the future generations of conservative New Zealanders. And if people really do believe it really is a human rights issue, then boy, call me and I’ve got some great investment strategies to discuss.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Andrei (2,431 comments) says:

    What are you suggesting Andrei? Should all homosexuals and barren females and spermless males and spinsters and bachelors have to “go to the works”?

    No Pete George – it is so predictable that somebody would make that claim from what I wrote.

    See marriage is universal in every society that has ever prospered as is the commitment to raising children – if you fuck that up your culture dies out or actually gets overwhelmed by a more dynamic culture that hasn’t forgotten this.

    And so honour is conferred upon the married state because it is so useful in perpetuating the species in a orderly fashion. Marriage and family do not exist as an arbitrary construct and never have.

    By redefining it, by separating it out from its fundamental purpose and granting the material benefits without the fundamental obligations that come with it, you are actually discouraging people from undertaking the important task of raising the new generations and investing in the future.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Don the Kiwi (1,338 comments) says:

    Reid.

    “……. it’s a shame to see the conservative rump of New Zealand cave so readily for such a cheap temporary gain, given what is at stake for the future generations of conservative New Zealanders.”

    I’m now agreeing with Redbaiter here – this govt is NOT conservative, but progressive – Labour Lite – a soft socialist bunch who are too afraid to stand on principle because some may be offended. Key even said the other week that the principles on which the National party were founded are no longer relevant.

    FFS – what a bunch of sell-outs !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    Advocates for homosexual marriage would have us believe that the issue is about the “rights” and “equality” of homosexuals. This is a propaganda lie.

    The reality is that the push to redefine marriage is about demanding public approval and celebration of homosexuality. To accept homosexual behaviour as “normal”

    It is blatantly obvious from activism both here and overseas that this is a big part of the motivation for this bill.

    You can’t demand people like or accept you, you can’t demand to be part of someones family, Iwi, or heterosexual tradition.

    This issue is about perceived human rights, another word for this is ‘insecurity’.

    There are several common tactics that advocates for gay marriage appear to have engaged in:

    1. Air this issue as frequently as people will stand.

    2. Try to silence people opposed in the first instance with the ‘b’ word and scare them off, this will work for a certain number of reasonable people that don’t want this label.

    3. Liken opponents of gay marriage to past abuses of race, gender, and nationality, link to a theoretical 1950′s white American chauvinist male as frequently as possible.

    4. Seek out and provoke Christian bigots, their rants and ignorance will put people right off opposing this bill, people don’t like being told what to believe by self righteous Christians.

    5. Link all opposition to gay marriage to Christian bigotry, do not allow a more moderate opinion to stand independently or get air time.

    6. Attack every MP that reveals opposition to the bill, use facebook, twitter and any other means available, MPs hate this sort of bad press.

    It is clear to me that this issue is based on a profoundly weak argument for gay marriage, if it wasn’t, none of the above would be necessary as the weight of the argument would be enough.

    As it stands, we are having our minds made up for us, there is no reason organic change (if there really is a desire for it) wasn’t possible with the civil unions legislation, legal equality is the responsibility of the state, redefining our traditions is not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. eszett (2,271 comments) says:

    I have explained before. I private members’s bill did was not in any party’s manifesto like the partial asset sales which the Greens ripping off the taxpayer to collect signatures.

    A red herring, if anything. There are countless bills that have not been on any party’s manifesto and still pass into legislation. None of them warrant a referendum.

    If you say that, you must insist on very single bill that was not in any way or form on any parties agenda during election to go to a referendum. In fact any minority party bill would have to pass a referendum as well. Yet I don’t see you calling for a Charter school referendum. After all ACT got just over 1% of the vote.

    I don’t think there needs to be a referendum and you still haven’t made a case why there should be one. Just being a private members bill is certainly not enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Reid (15,593 comments) says:

    Key has always been Liarbore lite Don. His problem is he’s also a poll-driven fruitcake with no political instincts. As in, why else didn’t he cancel the “tax cuts for the rich” when he had a perfect opportunity (the GFC) and which has dogged him ever since from all the Liarbore lies?

    The thing that the pollsters aren’t telling him is that this gay marriage thing will turn out to be his nail in the coffin since after this, no conservative will trust him on anything, they’ll know for sure he is what he in fact always has been but what he has tried to conceal, a poll driven fruitcake protected by $55m personally so he really doesn’t care, he just wants to be popular. And the pollsters who advise him unfortunately haven’t yet worked out that a man like that leading NZ is ultimately not looked up to, he’s looked down upon. But Key will unfortunately do the damage before that calamity comes to pass for him, since working that out is not really his field and although he’s certainly bright enough to, the daily job of being PM means he won’t give more than a passing thought to “this gay marriage thing” and he’ll trust all the rest of it to his advisers. Oh dear.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. eszett (2,271 comments) says:

    Marriage and family do not exist as an arbitrary construct and never have.

    Of course they have. They are human constructs. No matter how much gobbledegook you produce here, you can’t change the fact that marriage and family are human constructs. In fact, they vary within societies and ages.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    No matter how much gobbledegook you produce here, you can’t change the fact that marriage and family are human constructs.

    What a load of crap.

    Are packs of wolves canine constructs? A hive of bees a bee construct? Human social units called “families” are not something we decided to do, they are something we are compelled to do by our biology.

    And in this regard it is entirely logical that breeding pairs get some sort of official, exclusive state recognition.

    You could and should argue that it is beneficial to our species (because it bloody well is).

    Homosexual = biological anomaly, not the same (cue sesame street).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. eszett (2,271 comments) says:

    Wow, Shunda, it always amazes me how powerful these so called “activists are, how powerless all the religious institutions and other opponents of gay marriage are and above all how stupid the general population is.

    Or maybe, just maybe you have it wrong. Maybe the arguments for gay marriage are robust, strong and convincing, the arguments against are weak, emotional and illogical and most people are just okay with gays marrying.

    Now which of these two scenarios seems more likely, I wonder?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. eszett (2,271 comments) says:

    Are packs of wolves canine constructs? A hive of bees a bee construct? Human social units called “families” are not something we decided to do, they are something we are compelled to do by our biology.

    Load of crap, Shunda?
    Because if you start down the biology track, marriage certainly isn’t part of biology, nor is monogamy. Certainly not the “nuclear family” which is nothing but a concept invented up in the 50s.

    You really need to beef up on your biology.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Chuck Bird (4,415 comments) says:

    “above all how stupid the general population is”

    A typical arrogant libertarian outlook. At least DPF is very intelligent even if he is obsessed with the libertarian ideology. Do you think you are more intelligent than many Christian scholars. It is arrogant fools like you who findished off the ACT party with your nonsense about dope.

    It may even be possible that your IQ is above room temperature your EQ is not.

    BTW – why do you hide behind a pseudonym when you criticise others for doing the same?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    and most people are just okay with gays marrying.

    Even that were if true (and it isn’t) so what?

    Truth has never been a consensus of opinion.

    Most people believe there’s something in “sensing murder” too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Fletch (5,726 comments) says:

    The APA changed its opinion on homosexuality because of scientific research.

    Chiz that simply isn’t true. The APA changed because of bullying by homosexual activists, pure and simple.
    What’s more, they admit it.

    “It was never a medical decision—and that’s why I think the action came so fast…It was a political move.”

    “That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.”
    -Barbara Gittings, Same-gender sex activist

    On April 9, 1974, results of the vote [regarding homosexuality as a disorder] were announced. Only 10,555 of the 17,905 APA members had voted in the election. The results were as follows,

    Total APA members eligible to vote: 17,905
    Number of APA members that actually voted: 10,555
    Number of members that “Abstained”: 367
    Number of “ No” votes-votes to keep “homosexuality” in the DSM as a mental disorder: 3,810
    Number of “Yes” votes-votes to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM as a mental disorder: 5,854

    It should be noted that the number of “Yes” (5,854) made up only 32.7 percent of the total membership of the APA. Only slightly less than one-third of the APA’s membership approved the change.

    But the vast majority was not behind the change. How do I know? Four years later, the Medical Journal Aspects of Human Sexuality reported a survey showing “69 percent of psychiatrists disagreed with the vote and still considered homosexuality a disorder.”

    The change wasn’t made because of any new scientific evidence: it was made purely because of the disruptions of activists.

    If you’re really interested, READ about how it all came about.

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

    eszett- if marriage is all just a social construct then we have a real problem. Because it has existed for time immemorial and represents the natural pairing of male and female in a sexual union and the care of the children that generally ensue. Marriage is found in all societies and is always between a man and a woman. Everyone that has ever been born (with a handful of exceptions) is the result of the male and female bonding. To argue otherwise is silly.

    So if marriage is a construct then everything is a construct. Including the idea that gay marriage is ‘right’. That equality is ‘right’.

    You cannot have it both ways. if everything is a construct then you eliminate any transcendent notion of right and wrong. Including the idea that same sex marriage is objectively right. From where I am sitting anyway it looks like the subjective preferences of our secular liberal elites.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. eszett (2,271 comments) says:

    A typical arrogant libertarian outlook. At least DPF is very intelligent even if he is obsessed with the libertarian ideology. Do you think you are more intelligent than many Christian scholars. It is arrogant fools like you who findished off the ACT party with your nonsense about dope.

    It may even be possible that your IQ is above room temperature your EQ is not.

    BTW – why do you hide behind a pseudonym when you criticise others for doing the same?

    Oh dear, Chucky, do I need to explain everything to you?
    Please read Shundas post at 8:35 and then mine again (carefully this time).

    His hypothesis of how “activist” manipulate public opinion implies a stupid public. So it was him that was making that implication not me. May i quote from his post: As it stands, we are having our minds made up for us, etc, etc.

    So please read carefully before making such silly accusations, especially when commenting about other people’s IQ.

    And even if you give me credit for finishing off ACT, as much as I would love to accept, I have to say ACT did most of that themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Reid (15,593 comments) says:

    if marriage is all just a social construct then we have a real problem.

    Why?

    Marriage is the construction blueprint that builds the house of the family.

    Why is that a “real problem?”

    Is it because after millennia the definition of those institutions is now coming under attack, yes that’s correct, it is attack, by evil people bent upon undermining the solidarity of such institution?

    Is that the problem?

    If so I agree.

    Otherwise, how else could the construction blueprint that builds the house of the family be a problem?

    Quite apart from the question of why any evil person and one would have to be evil of course, would even want to even consider attacking such a revered and traditional social structure that benefits mankind in every way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    Because if you start down the biology track, marriage certainly isn’t part of biology, nor is monogamy.

    That is a lie.

    Marriage simply reflects the biological generalization that human beings, as a species, tend to stick with the one they mate with. That is a fact, it is also not unprecedented in nature as other species do the same thing and also create close social units.

    If anything, what happened after the 50′s is a distinct break from our biology, as technology, abundant food and resources enabled atypical social structures and independence. It also enabled an explosion of sexually transmitted infections and diseases, some of which never existed before. Why was that? *because the behavior was outside of the biological mean and we hadn’t developed resistance to such disease*.

    Certainly not the “nuclear family” which is nothing but a concept invented up in the 50s.

    Whooop!! there it is!!, there’s that 1950′s reference they are so fond off that I mentioned not so long ago. Nice.

    You really need to beef up on your biology.

    My biology is working fine, I have a mate (female), kids, and I’ve never had an STD.

    You?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Fletch (5,726 comments) says:

    One quote: You can not believe in one law for all for some issues and for some people, but not for same sex couples.

    Yes, you can. The one law (marriage is between one man and one woman) for for everyone including same-sex couples. The State is allowed to ‘discriminate’ based on the Public good.

    A. Equality, Justice, and the Heart of the Debate

    Revisionists today miss this central question – what is marriage? – most obviously when they equate traditional marriage laws with laws banning interracial marriage. They argue that people cannot control their sexual orientation any more than they can control the color of their skin. In both cases, they argue, there is no rational basis for treating relationships differently, because the freedom to marry the person one loves is a fundamental right. The state discriminates against homosexuals by interfering with this basic right, thus denying them the equal protection of the laws.

    But the analogy fails: antimiscegenation was about whom to allow to marry, not what marriage was essentially about; and sex, unlike race, is rationally relevant to the latter question. Because every law makes distinctions, there is nothing unjustly discriminatory in marriage law’s reliance on genuinely relevant distinctions.

    Opponents of interracial marriage typically did not deny that marriage (understood as a union consummated by conjugal acts) between a black and a white was possible any more than proponents of segregated public facilities argued that some feature of the whites‐only water fountains made it impossible for blacks to drink from them. The whole point of antimiscegenation laws in the United States was to prevent the genuine possibility of interracial marriage from being realized or recognized, in order to maintain the gravely unjust system of white supremacy.

    By contrast, the current debate is precisely over whether it is possible for the kind of union that has marriage’s essential features to exist between two people of the same sex. Revisionists do not propose leaving intact the historic definition of marriage and simply expanding the pool of people eligible to marry. Their goal is to abolish the conjugal conception of marriage in our law and replace it with the revisionist conception.

    More decisively, though, the analogy to antimiscegenation fails because it relies on the false assumption that any distinction is unjust discrimination. But suppose that the legal incidents of marriage were made available to same‐sex as well as opposite‐sex couples. We would still, by the revisionists’ logic, be discriminating against those seeking open, temporary, polygynous, polyandrous, polyamorous, incestuous, or bestial unions. After all, people can find themselves experiencing sexual and romantic desire for multiple partners (concurrent or serial), or closely blood‐related partners, or nonhuman partners. They are (presumably) free not to act on these sexual desires, but this is true also of people attracted to persons of the same sex.

    Many revisionists point out that there are important differences between these cases and same‐sex unions. Incest, for example, can produce children with health problems and may involve child abuse. But then, assuming for the moment that the state’s interest in avoiding such bad outcomes trumps what revisionists tend to describe as a fundamental right, why not allow incestuous marriages between adult infertile or same‐sex couples? Revisionists might answer that people should be free to enter such relationships, and all or some of the others listed, but that these do not merit legal recognition. Why? Because, the revisionist will be forced to admit, marriage as such just cannot take these forms, or can do so only immorally. Recognizing them would be, variously, confused or immoral.

    Revisionists who arrive at this conclusion must accept at least three principles.

    First, marriage is not a legal construct with totally malleable contours – not “just a contract.” Otherwise, how could the law get marriage wrong? Rather, some sexual relationships are instances of a distinctive kind of relationship – call it real marriage – that has its own value and structure, whether the state recognizes it or not, and is not changed by laws based on a false conception of it. Like the relationship between parents and their children, or between the parties to an ordinary promise, real marriages are moral realities that create moral privileges and obligations between people, independently of legal enforcement.

    Thus, when some states forbade interracial marriage, they either attempted to keep people from forming real marriages, or denied legal status to those truly marital relationships. Conversely, if the state conferred the same status on a man and his two best friends or on a woman and an inanimate object, it would not thereby make them really married. It would merely give the title and (where possible) the benefits of legal marriages to what are not actually marriages at all.

    READ the whole thing -

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. eszett (2,271 comments) says:

    Scott (1,024) Says:
    August 20th, 2012 at 9:20 pm

    eszett- if marriage is all just a social construct then we have a real problem. Because it has existed for time immemorial and represents the natural pairing of male and female in a sexual union and the care of the children that generally ensue.

    Time immemorial? When is that?
    Natural pairing of male and female in a sexual union? By that definition every one night stand is a marriage.

    Marriage is found in all societies and is always between a man and a woman.

    Except of course when a man is allowed to marry more than one woman or keep concubines. Or the woman was allowed to keep lovers (seldom but happened). Not to mention divorce and remarriage these days.

    Everyone that has ever been born (with a handful of exceptions) is the result of the male and female bonding. To argue otherwise is silly.

    But not necessarily marriage.

    So if marriage is a construct then everything is a construct. Including the idea that gay marriage is ‘right’. That equality is ‘right’.

    You cannot have it both ways. if everything is a construct then you eliminate any transcendent notion of right and wrong. Including the idea that same sex marriage is objectively right. From where I am sitting anyway it looks like the subjective preferences of our secular liberal elites.

    Nice try with your nonsense, but it just more gobbledegook and doesn’t stack up

    Transcendent notion of right and wrong? What bullshit

    Marriage is a human construct, there is nothing objective about it.

    If opposite sex couple have the right to marry, same sex couples should have the same right.

    Your attempts at pseudo-intellectual justification are however quite amusing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Andrei (2,431 comments) says:

    Natural pairing of male and female in a sexual union? By that definition every one night stand is a marriage.

    Children born of one night stands have a much lower chance of survival, effectively zero if you live in a harsh environment, say the Eurasian Steppes – indeed few such born of such couplings prosper today, even in our very benign times.

    In truth, it takes 20 years to raise a child to be a man, the first ten of those years the child being almost entirely dependent upon adults for its survival and by having the mother of the child bonded with the father the chance of that child attaining adulthood is greatly enhanced by the sharing of the burden.

    That is why marriage is a universal concept

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Fletch (5,726 comments) says:

    Marriage is a human construct, there is nothing objective about it.

    Marriage law is a “construct” insofar as it mirrors Natural Law – what already is naturally occuring regarding the bonding of man and woman, the procreation of offspring and the rearing of them in the safety of the family unit.

    If opposite sex couple have the right to marry, same sex couples should have the same right.

    Based on what? As I said above, it is not discrimination to make obvious distinctions on what constitutes a family, and who should and should not get married. The State already makes such distinctions regarding marrying multiple partners, family members, animals, etc, and has every right to do so based on upholding the public good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. eszett (2,271 comments) says:

    Children born of one night stands have a much lower chance of survival, effectively zero if you live in a harsh environment, say the Eurasian Steppes – indeed few such born of such couplings prosper today, even in our very benign times.

    Really, So you really think that your marriage today is the same as the coupling thousand years ago in say the “Eurasian Steppes”?
    I pity your wife if that is the case.

    That is why marriage is a universal concept

    Marriage is more than just a contract to raise children. Children can be raised without marriage. In fact have been raised for eons before a social construct of marriage emerged. For instance in the Eurasian Steppes

    It is amusing to see how you accuse gay marriage proponents to redefine marriage, yet it is you guys who are constantly coming up with some obscure definitions

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. eszett (2,271 comments) says:

    Marriage law is a “construct” insofar as it mirrors Natural Law – what already is naturally occuring regarding the bonding of man and woman, the procreation of offspring and the rearing of them in the safety of the family unit.

    That is just made up nonsense. The mere “bonding” of a man and woman does not constitute a marriage. Even if it did, why wouldn’t a bonding of a man or a man not constitute a marriage then?

    If opposite sex couple have the right to marry, same sex couples should have the same right.

    Based on what?

    Based on the undeniable fact that marriage is a social construct.

    Animals? Really? You still bring up animals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Andrei (2,431 comments) says:

    In fact have been raised for eons before a social construct of marriage emerged. For instance in the Eurasian Steppes

    The only thing that that statement displays is how abysmally ignorant of history you are – utterly woeful

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. eszett (2,271 comments) says:

    The State already makes such distinctions regarding marrying multiple partners, family members, animals, etc, and has every right to do so based on upholding the public good.

    Exactly. So you admit it’s discriminatory. (But use the nicer word “distinction”)
    The key emphasis is based on upholding the public good. Discriminating against same sex couples is no more upholding the public good than discriminating against mixed race couples.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. eszett (2,271 comments) says:

    The only thing that that statement displays is how abysmally ignorant of history you are – utterly woeful

    lol, pretty rich coming from you, Andrei.
    However I am sure you think that marriage certificates were handed out in abundance 20000 years ago on the Eurasian Steppes.

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

    Why bother with Andrei, read his blog – he and Lucia Marie and Fletch talk about their hatred of homosexuality on a daily basis. It’s gone way beyond obsession, I actually think they really believe society will fall over and the apocalypse will come early if it passes into law. Be nice to them, they are the ones with the mental condition.

    They still say marriage can only be legit if it’s for having children. No regard to those who can’t have kids or choose not to. They believe in “values” that expired just after they allowed women to go to work. When this law passes, and it will, we can look at them as being (once again) on the wrong side of history – and on the same side as Redbaiter and Chuck Bird.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    on the wrong side of history

    Would you just listen to it.

    These people would have us believe this is the most pressing issue of our times, the human rights issue to trump all rights issues.

    It is a cultural reflection of ignorance and arrogance, name it and claim it, “you bloody heteros ought not now mind your own business, you’re not paying enough attention to us”.

    All for the tiny proportion of the gay community that actually want to marry, about the same number of people that have a fetish for eating slugs after midnight.

    Our society won’t fail because of gay marriage, it will fail because we haven’t got our bloody priorities right.

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

    Not at all. But it doesn’t help it when you equate gay marriage to eating slugs. I remember the outrage when they were wanting to make it more acceptable for inter-race relationships. The christians were standing side by side with the rednecks wailing about it all.

    Our society will be exactly the same the day after this law has passed. Nothing will be different. No matter how petty and embarrassing you look waving your arms about saying otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. eszett (2,271 comments) says:

    These people would have us believe this is the most pressing issue of our times, the human rights issue to trump all rights issues.

    Society can easily deal with more than one issue at a time.

    To use your point about strengths of arguments for and against, when you pull the “but there are far more important issues” card, that usually is a very clear indication that you have a very weak standing.

    Besides, that argument can be easily turned against you. if it is such an unimportant issue and there are so many more important issues to worry about, why are you wasting so much energy on it? Do you have your priorities right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Chuck Bird (4,415 comments) says:

    “I remember the outrage when they were wanting to make it more acceptable for inter-race relationships. The christians were standing side by side with the rednecks wailing about it all. ”

    I see many of the liberals on this in regards matters homosexual make very racist comments in regard Maori. I am not referring to matters about Maori seats and land claims but out and out racist comments.

    In the Southern US in the 1960′s many conservative Christians were opposed to interracial marriage. In was different in the north.

    I have noticed in ACT in the last 2 or 3 years when the libertarians increased as a percentage of the membership the anti Maori attitudes became more common.

    The linking of those opposed to homosexual marriage to those who oppose interracial marriage is untrue and a nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. eszett (2,271 comments) says:

    The linking of those opposed to homosexual marriage to those who oppose interracial marriage is untrue and a nonsense

    Linking those who use the same or similar arguments (mostly for the very same reasons) against gay marriage that were used against interracial marriage is neither untrue nor nonsense.

    It is precisely because of these similarities (of arguments and motivation) that are obvious that you feel uncomfortable about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Chuck Bird (4,415 comments) says:

    As someone commented in the video there are former homosexuals but there are not former Maori.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Pete George (21,826 comments) says:

    It looks like Judith Collins has come out in support of marriage equality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Fletch (5,726 comments) says:

    Look, go and READ the link I have above if you’re really interested.
    It asks the question, “what is marriage”, which is the question that must be asked, and what same-sex marriage proponents are not asking. It’s long, but gets right to the main issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Pete George (21,826 comments) says:

    A look at what marriage is ‘defined’ as: http://yournz.org/2012/08/04/what-is-marriage/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Fletch (5,726 comments) says:

    What is marriage?

    Consider two competing views:

    Conjugal View: Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together. The spouses seal (consummate) and renew their union by conjugal acts – acts that constitute the behavioral part of the process of reproduction, thus uniting them as a reproductive unit. Marriage is valuable in itself, but its inherent orientation to the bearing and rearing of children contributes to its distinctive structure, including norms of monogamy and fidelity. This link to the welfare of children also helps explain why marriage is important to the common good and why the state should recognize and regulate it.

    Revisionist View: Marriage is the union of two people (whether of the same sex or of opposite sexes) who commit to romantically loving and caring for each other and to sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life. It is essentially a union of hearts and minds, enhanced by whatever forms of sexual intimacy both partners find agreeable. The state should recognize and regulate marriage because it has an interest in stable romantic partnerships and in the concrete needs of spouses and any children they may choose to rear.

    It has sometimes been suggested that the conjugal understanding of marriage is based only on religious beliefs. This is false. Although the world’s major religious traditions have historically understood marriage as a union of man and woman that is by nature apt for procreation and childrearing,3 this suggests merely that no one religion invented marriage. Instead, the demands of our common human nature have shaped (however imperfectly) all of our religious traditions to recognize this natural institution. As such, marriage is the type of social practice whose basic contours can be discerned by our common human reason, whatever our religious background. We argue in this Article for legally enshrining the conjugal view of marriage, using arguments that require no appeal to religious authority.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. eszett (2,271 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (2,463) Says:
    August 21st, 2012 at 7:50 am

    As someone commented in the video there are former homosexuals but there are not former Maori.

    Chucky, the meme that “homosexuality is a choice” is central to your argument. So central and essential that you rather stick your head in the sand and ignore every abundant piece of evidence that it is not, than to admit that it isn’t. You said so yourself just in this thread.

    Doesn’t alter the fact that your motivation is based on irrationality, fear and a hatred of homosexuals, particularly male homosexuals.
    You are not against gay marriage per se, you are simply against homosexuality in total.

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

    There is still no evidence that sexual orientation can change.

    You’re shitting right? Dumb arse!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    So central and essential that you rather stick your head in the sand and ignore every abundant piece of evidence that it is not

    eszett, if you don’t think that homosexuality is a choice for at least some of the gay community you are possibly one of the most profound idiots I have ever come across.

    You argue this issue like a legalistic Christian claiming absolutes and stamping your feet and condemning all other views, in short, you appear to be nothing but a common bigot.

    Human sexuality, sexual behavior, and sexual orientation can all be altered by life experience , trauma, or ‘choice’. That at least some of the gay community are gay because of these things is absolutely irrefutable.

    But I can see why you have to take your religious devoted viewpoint (your argument depends on it) but be in no mistake, you are arguing no differently to a bible thumping Christian, all be it without a deity.

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

    eszett
    you are incorrect.
    Nothing in the scientific literature shows that homosexuality is hardwired into humans, but all of it does show it is not normal being such a small % and then the biology shows it is not natural.

    You can’t get away from this and this is at the root of the thoughts, position and feelings of those who oppose your viewpoint.
    That will not change regardless of what the law says.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. eszett (2,271 comments) says:

    @ the 2 cents and Shunda,

    Firstly, the “not natural” argument is so debunked, I am surprised you even try to bring it up. Homosexual behaviour is documented in various species. So it occurs in nature, it has been around since the history of humans, it is found in all societies and ages.

    Contrary, there are a number of things humans do that no other species does, which by your definition would therefore be “not natural”.

    The whole “not natural” argument is nothing but a substitute for “gays are icky”

    As for the choice argument, homosexual attraction is not a choice. You can choose who you have sex with, but not why you are sexually attracted to. The very fact that people are homosexual in societies where homosexuality is severely oppressed and punished should be indication enough that choice has nothing to do with it.

    And while there may be rare cases where trauma may cause homosexual tendencies, only a “profound idiot” would try and base their argumentation on that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. eszett (2,271 comments) says:

    ,i>But I can see why you have to take your religious devoted viewpoint (your argument depends on it) but be in no mistake, you are arguing no differently to a bible thumping Christian, all be it without a deity.

    lol, Shunda, next thing you will be arguing is that atheism is a religious belief as well.

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

    Fletch:The APA changed because of bullying by homosexual activists, pure and simple.

    The APA changed its opinion because of research, by Evelyn Hooker in 1957 showing that homosexuality was not associated with psychopathology, and subsequent research which confirmed this. Changing cultural views may have made an impact too.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.