Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill Submission

October 24th, 2012 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

SUBMISSION OF DAVID FARRAR ON THE
MARRIAGE (DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE) AMENDMENT BILL TO THE GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION SELECT COMMITTEE

 

About the Submitter

  1. This submission is made by David Farrar in a personal capacity. I would like to appear before the Committee to speak to my submission.
  2. While not a detail I would normally include in a submission, I am heterosexual, so have no self-interest in this bill.

Overall Bill

  1. I submit in support of the bill proceeding. To quote Dr Paul Hutchison, “I simply cannot construct a strong enough intellectual moral health or even spiritual argument against it … and the reverse is very much the case.” This bill will allow a couple of the same sex to marry each other, which I believe to be good for the couple, good for the institution of marriage, and good for New Zealand. I do support some amendments being made to clarify the impact of this bill on other Acts of

Equality

  1. A same sex couple is of course different to a couple of the opposition gender. But this doesn’t mean that the law should discriminate in not allowing same sex couples to marry. Same sex couples fall in love, commit to each other, form households and raise children – the core of being a family. The law should allow such couples to marry. Why would we want an adult couple desiring marriage to not be able to marry?
  2. Some argue that as a same sex couple can’t produce children naturally, that they should be ineligible to marry. I do not accept this argument as many married couples are infertile, choose not to have children, or have children from past relationships. We don’t ban woman who have reached menopause from marrying, and now should we ban same sex couples.

Strengthening Marriage

  1. I think marriage is a wonderful institution, and the benefits of marriage are well documented. I believe allowing a same sex couple to marry, hence committing to each other for life, strengthens the institution of marriage.
  2. I would like to quote three conservative leaders as to why is good for marriage. US Solictor-General (for George W Bush) Theordore Olsen has said “Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize.Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one’s own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society.

    The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.”

    and“I understand, but reject, certain religious teachings that denounce homosexuality as morally wrong, illegitimate, or unnatural; and I take strong exception to those who argue that same-sex relationships should be discouraged by society and law. Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual.

    To a very large extent, these characteristics are immutable, like being left-handed. And, while our Constitution guarantees the freedom to exercise our individual religious convictions, it equally prohibits us from forcing our beliefs on others. I do not believe that our society can ever live up to the promise of equality, and the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, until we stop invidious discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

  3. UK Conservative PM David Cameron: “But for me, leadership on families also means speaking out on marriage. Marriage is not just a piece of paper. It pulls couples together through the ebb and flow of life. It gives children stability. And it says powerful things about what we should value. So yes, we will recognise marriage in the tax system.

    But we’re also doing something else. I once stood before a 
    Conservative conference and said it shouldn’t matter whether commitment was between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and another man. You applauded me for that. Five years on, we’re consulting on legalising gay marriage.
    And to anyone who has reservations, I say: Yes, it’s about equality, but it’s also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative.

  4. Former Australian Liberal Party Leader Malcolm Turnbull said “Families are the foundation of our society and I am firmly of the view that that we would be a stronger society if more people were married – and by that I mean formally, legally married – and fewer were divorced. …And I have to say that I am utterly unpersuaded by the proposition that my marriage to Lucy, or indeed any marriage, is undermined by two gay men or two lesbians setting up house down the road – whether it is called a marriage or not.

    Regrettably, this aspect of the debate is dripping with the worst sort of hypocrisy, and the deepest pools are all too often found among the most sanctimonious.

    Let us be honest with each other. The threat to marriage is not the gays. It is a lack of loving commitment – whether it is found in the form of neglect, indifference, cruelty or adultery, to name just a few manifestations of the loveless desert in which too many marriages come to grief.”

  5. I agree with Messrs. Cameron, Turnbull and Olsen that allowing same sex couples to marry will strengthen the institution of marriage.

Welcoming diversity

  1. Adolescence is a difficult time for many teenagers, and gay/lesbian teenagers especially can find it more challenging than most as they wonder whether there is something “wrong” with them as they are not attracted to the opposite sex like most of their peers are. We see the results of this in the significantly higher levels of suicide amongst gay and lesbian teenagers. The 2007 Auckland University study of around 9,000 secondary school students found 20% of youth attracted to the same (or both) sex attempted suicide in the last year. This is an appallingly high figure.
  2. Knowing that despite their “different” sexual orientation, that one day they can love and marry someone will I think send a very powerful message to young gay and lesbian New Zealanders that there is nothing wrong in being different, and that the Parliament of New Zealand has said so by allowing same sex couples to marry.

Tradition

  1. One argument against allowing same sex couples to marry is that this goes against the traditional definition of marriage.
  2. This is no surprise. Up until 27 years ago, it was a criminal offence for a homosexual man to even have consensual sex with another adult man. So of course there is no recent tradition of same sex marriage.
  3. If we go back far enough to be very traditional, I would point out that In the 1st century AD Emperor Nero is reported to have married a male slave. Later in 342 AD Emperor Constantius II outlawed same sex marriage with a penalty of execution. This suggests that there were a number of same sex marriages prior to that.
  4. Regardless marriage has in fact changed significantly over time. I follow with some examples.
  5. Traditionally the age of marriage was the onset of puberty. In the 12th century European canon law documented by Gratian allowed marriage from the age of seven onwards, and stayed in force religiously until 1918. In 1689 a nine year old Mary Hathaway was married in the US.
  6. Interracial marriage was banned in the US until the California Supreme Court over-turned this in 1948 and then the US Supreme Court in 1967. The ban was not removed from the Alabama state constitution until the year 2000.
  7. Married couples were prohibited from using contraception in the US until 1965.
  8. Traditionally under English common law, a married woman had no legal identity outside that of her husband, until laws started to change in 1839. It wasn’t until 1981 that a married woman in the US had equal property rights with her husband.
  9. I hope these examples show that the nature of marriage, and the eligibility of two people to marry, has changed over time and I think we would all agree for the better. Tradition should not trump equality.

Religious v Civil Marriage

  1. Some people advocate that ideally the state should not decide who can or can’t marry. That marriage is primarily a religious institution, and that the state should merely register civil unions, and allow couples to get a “blessing of marriage” from a religion should they wish to.
  2. I agree that this would be an ideal situation, respecting the origins of marriage as a religious ceremony. If an MP wishes to put up a bill abolishing marriage as a civil institution, then that would be good, and I would advocate for its passage,
  3. However the reality is that marriage is a state institution in pretty much every country on Earth, and that it is unlikely to ever not be a state institution in New Zealand. While it remains a state institution, I believe it would be wrong to deny the institution of marriage to same sex couples.
  4. PM John Key recently said that in politics you don’t start with a blank slate of paper, you start with the real world. In the real world marriage is a state institution, and rejecting same sex marriage on the basis that the state shouldn’t decide at all who can get married is turning a blind eye to the fact that the state does decide, and is likely to always do so.

Amendments

  1. It is unclear to me whether this bill as currently worded would allow a married same sex couple to adopt under the Adoption Act 1955. I note a gay or lesbian individual can currently adopt, but not jointly with their partner.
  2. The definition of adoptive parent in s2 of the Adoption Act refers to a husband and a wife. However in s3(2) it refers to “2 spouses jointly” being able to apply for an adoption order. I suspect a court would have to decide which clause takes precedence, which will mean uncertainty.
  3. To remove uncertainty, I propose that this bill be amended with the addition of a clause stating that a married couple should be treated as eligible to jointly adopt under the Adoption Act. Arguably such a clause could be worded to apply to any other Act which refers to married couples, spouses or husbands and wives.
  4. A benefit of having a specific clause amending the Adoption Act is it would allow MPs to vote explicitly on both the issue of same sex marriage and same sex (as a couple) adoption. I would advocate Parliament votes in favour of both.
  5. Some people have expressed a concern that churches could be forced to marry same sex couples in contravention to their religious beliefs. I agree this is undesirable. I do not regard this as likely, and note neither does the Human Rights Commission. To remove doubt, I recommend an explicit clause be inserted to state no religious body, or minister of religion shall be required to perform a marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs, nor provide facilities for such a ceremony unless that facility is available to the general public.
  6. Another concern is that it is an offence under s56 of the Marriage Act to allege that “any persons lawfully married are not truly and sufficiently married” and that this could capture someone saying that a same sex marriage is not in the eyes of their religion a “true” marriage. I recommend the select committee look at amending or repealing s56 to minimize this perceived risk. I note there has never been a prosecution (it appears) under s56, and other laws such as defamation may be sufficient to repeal it safely.

Thank you for considering this submission. I would like to make an oral submission in support, and look forward to appearing.

 

David Farrar

Tags: , , ,

101 Responses to “Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill Submission”

  1. Harriet (4,771 comments) says:

    [DPF: 50 demerits]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Ryan Sproull (7,093 comments) says:

    Well written, DPF.

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

    Now we wait for RedBaiter, KowTow, LastManStanding, and their ilk to come on here expressing outrage that you would support such an abomination

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. georgebolwing (758 comments) says:

    Mighty_Kites: you beat me by a minute on that!

    I strongly endorse DPF’s submission.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Harriet (4,771 comments) says:

    The better part of John Keys Marriage -and virtually everyone elses- is the development of the children into adults.

    NO ONE can argue against that!

    Gay Marriage is a fucken joke to make gays ‘feel’ better about themselves.

    If gays were truly ‘proud’ of being gay, then they wouldn’t ‘feel’ the ‘need’ to conform to a hetrosexual and conservative institution that is primarily for the BENEFIT of the children who come from that Marriage.

    In other words-

    If Marriage is to BENEFIT gays – then gays must then look upon themselves as the ‘children’ and not the ‘adults’ who take on the MAJOR RESPONSABILITY of a Marriage: Children.

    Gays are being very immature about this – so too is Key and Farrar. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Andrei (2,537 comments) says:

    If ever there was an issue that shows how utterly clueless are elites are it is this one.

    Marriage is about joining two people together to create, to put it bluntly, a breeding pair.

    It is not about having your sexual preferences validated

    It is not about tax breaks and benefits.

    It is not about having a fancy party with a cake with two fucking dolls on top as the centerpiece.

    The ridiculous thing is the children of the sexual revolution – if it feels good just do it, have not produced enough children as well as murdering a substantial proportion of those who they have conceived in the womb to keep them in the style to which they believe they are entitled in their dotage.

    And yet they double down with the ideas that are leading us all to perdition with this insane idea.

    Beyond bonkers

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Redbaiter (8,274 comments) says:

    Maybe Mighty Kite can address the debate rather than issue ad hominem attacks on those who might have different views. (but of course this is how this whole argument has gone with allegations of hate and intolerance blasted constantly at dissenters)

    All Mr. Farrar’s submission does (leaving aside the multitude of logical errors that I am sure others will address) is underline the fact that NZ is basically a one party state where at each election elitist Progressives argue about who is best to lead that state and are not too worried whether it is Labour or National.

    And neither should they be as the parties are virtually the same.

    Half of National voted with Labour on the first reading of this bill, in support of the extreme left wing Labour list party member who introduced it. Showing just how far the National has drifted from its original course.

    And that is OK. The Progressives can have their one party state as long as they can hold on to it.

    People unhappy about this state of affairs (like Conservatives) can put their vote elsewhere, and let John Key’s National party in particular know that they are sick of being betrayed.

    AND IT IS NOT ABOUT EQUALITY.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Harriet (4,771 comments) says:

    DPF #

    [ DPF: 50 demerits ]

    You can’t be serious?

    It was a joke David – it was a PLAY ON THE WORDS YOU WROTE!

    Others WILL pick it up too!

    And besides, I don’t bag you out like others do – and they DON’T get demerits…..having a shitty day in Vietnam are we…..taking it out on me?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. alloytoo (525 comments) says:

    #30 is already covered by the marriage act…..to wit a licence authorises a celebrant to conduct a marriage but does not compel it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Archer (200 comments) says:

    Andrei, you wrote “Marriage is about joining two people together to create, to put it bluntly, a breeding pair.”

    So you would support a law change that removed the right to get married when the marriage is between a man and woman who are too old to have children, or between a woman and a man where one has had a vasectomy/hysterectomy/other medical condition or between a man and a woman who have no intention of having children?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Mark (1,471 comments) says:

    DPF I disagree with you in terms of your point 29 and this is the reason that I cannot support the proposed changes to the act.. Adoption is not at all about the rights of Gay people it is about the rights of children and to confuse the two issues is overlooking the focus of adoption laws. If the adoption laws are to be amended to allow gay people to adopt then this should debated as a legislative change to the adoption laws and not slipped through as a side issue with Gay marriage rights.

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

    Andrei (1,505) Says:
    October 24th, 2012 at 1:27 pm

    It is not about having a fancy party with a cake with two fucking dolls on top as the centerpiece.

    Hi Andrei, Mr Christian who is a light on a hill for the rest of the world to see God’s glory and grace.

    Number of verses in the Bible against homosexuality – one in Leviticus, one in Romans, maybe a few more.

    Number of verses against swearing:

    Colossians 3:8 ESV / 253 helpful votes

    But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth.

    Ephesians 4:29 ESV / 213 helpful votes

    Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.

    Matthew 15:10-11 ESV / 192 helpful votes

    And he called the people to him and said to them, “Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.”

    James 3:10 ESV / 149 helpful votes

    From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so.

    Ephesians 5:4 ESV / 116 helpful votes

    Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.

    Matthew 12:36-37 ESV / 108 helpful votes

    I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

    James 3:6-8 ESV / 77 helpful votes

    And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life, and set on fire by hell. For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind, but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

    2 Timothy 2:16 ESV / 67 helpful votes

    But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness,

    Proverbs 21:23 ESV / 52 helpful votes

    Whoever keeps his mouth and his tongue keeps himself out of trouble.

    James 3:11-13 ESV / 37 helpful votes

    Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and salt water? Can a fig tree, my brothers, bear olives, or a grapevine produce figs? Neither can a salt pond yield fresh water. Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom.

    Matthew 5:37 ESV / 37 helpful votes

    Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.

    Psalm 19:14 ESV / 35 helpful votes

    Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in your sight, O Lord, my rock and my redeemer.

    Romans 12:2 ESV / 34 helpful votes

    Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

    Luke 6:45 ESV / 22 helpful votes

    The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.

    1 Corinthians 10:13 ESV / 21 helpful votes

    No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

    Colossians 4:6 ESV / 19 helpful votes

    Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.

    Romans 12:21 ESV / 16 helpful votes

    Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

    Proverbs 4:24 ESV / 15 helpful votes

    Put away from you crooked speech, and put devious talk far from you.

    1 Timothy 4:12 ESV / 13 helpful votes

    Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.

    James 4:7 ESV / 11 helpful votes

    Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

    Proverbs 6:12 ESV / 10 helpful votes

    A worthless person, a wicked man, goes about with crooked speech,

    James 1:26 ESV / 7 helpful votes

    If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless.

    Proverbs 10:31-32 ESV / 7 helpful votes

    The mouth of the righteous brings forth wisdom, but the perverse tongue will be cut off. The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable, but the mouth of the wicked, what is perverse.

    Psalm 141:3 ESV / 6 helpful votes

    Set a guard, O Lord, over my mouth; keep watch over the door of my lips!

    Psalm 34:13-14 ESV / 5 helpful votes

    Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking deceit. Turn away from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it.

    I now direct you to the following statement by Jesus Christ:

    “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[b][c] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.”

    Clearly, your swearing is just as grave of a sin as murder and (gasp shock horror) homosexuality.

    “Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.”

    James 2: “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.”

    I believe you will be going to Hell you angry, angry Pharisee.

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

    Keep a copy of your submission DPF. You’ll be able to tweak it for re-use when the time comes for you to support people marrying multiple partners, or their pets, or objects.

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

    Recent developments have found that being Gay is actually a preventable medical condition.

    Along with many other new findings that what the mother eats, does, doesnt do, etc will influence the rest of the fetus’ life.
    (eg: if the mother eats margarine during pregnancy, then the chances of the child developing asthma vastly increases), theyve also found that the levels of testosterone predicts ones sexual orientation later on.

    If the fetus is a male, then low testosterone in the mothers system results in a boy whose behavior is more feminine. If the baby is a girl, then high testosterone result in a male oriented child.

    Whats causing this ? currently unknown, but as with male sperm count collapse its probably caused by synthetic chemicals in the environment. We know that there are many estrogen like chemicals floating around – so they could be involved.

    But whatever is the cause, the fact is that in most cases being gay isnt in the genes or anything like that – its due to an incorrect level of hormones in the mothers system – and it is preventable.

    Now – back to marriage equality. We shouldnt be altering laws like the marriage act to cater for some medical problem that is caused by hormone imbalance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    If anyone ever wanted to engineer a method in which to destroy Western culture, then tampering with human sexuality, undermining marriage and the traditional family structures would be a pretty good place to start. The small group of sexual militants spearheading this charge are working overtime, like termites eating away at the foundations of a house and while the outside veneer still remains intact, the foundations have been pretty much gutted out already.

    This is not about “marriage equality”. It is about shoehorning sexual divergence into all corners of law and governance, and these militants will not rest until there is no means possible for anyone to be allowed to oppose them without the heavy hand of the state descending upon them like a ton of bricks.

    Homosexual men in the majority would have no intention to remain monogamous even if they were “married”, and this just serves to debase the institution for everyone else.

    A survey of male homosexuals conducted by the NZ Aids Foundation (hardly a hotbed of maniacal Christians & conservatives) revealed the following:

    * 57% of gay men take drugs, commonly amyl, grass, ecstasy and amphetamines
    * Up until 1986, 56% surveyed indicated that they had been sodomized whilst 15 or younger ( in the ensuing decades, 25% of gay men reported that they were first sodomized between the ages of 12 and 16)
    * Only 23% of men had managed to remain monogamous for more than a period of 6 months.
    * Nearly 10% reported having between 20 and 50 partners in the previous six months.
    * More than 25% of them had multiple regular partners as well as multiple casual partners, too.
    * A further 24% reported having between 6 to 20 partners in the previous 6 months.
    * 60% of all new syphillus cases are male homosexuals
    * 76% of all new HIV infections are male homosexuals

    http://www.nzaf.org.nz/files/2006_GAPSS_Report.pdf

    Civil Unions, marriage, whatever, these aforementioned gay behaviours aren’t going to change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. lastmanstanding (1,278 comments) says:

    In answer to Mighty_Kites et al my opposition as I have stated many times is the word Marriage and what that institution has represented over many thousands of years.

    I dont like the hijacking that is going on here. Marriage has been between a woman and a man. Full stop. I resent the glib and disengenious way Marriage and all that it has represented being taken for another purpose.

    I suggest if I and others did the same to the supporters of another word/institution they would even more outraged than I and others are.
    Of course they will deny it.

    I am not and have never been a bible basher. I simply believe that an institution as old as Marriage deserves some respect and that those who have chosen to enter into that institution also deserve some respect.

    I know it wont happen as the promoters are determined to hijack and change something that is near and dear to some of us come hell what may.

    They are of course selfish. They know no respect. Its all about what they want and to hell with any traditions.

    And yes the irony of a previous poster is not lost on me as one of the flower power free love generation who have failed to replace themselves ( although in my defence my wife and I have).

    Call it something else but please leave Marriage as the union of a woman and a man alone. Hands off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. eszett (2,392 comments) says:

    Excellent submission, David.
    Well written and pretty much sums up all the points.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. georgebolwing (758 comments) says:

    Urban Redneck:

    Accepting those figures are true, why do they in any way relate to whether same sex couples should be allowed to get legally married?

    Are you suggesting that we should have a test of potential fidelity before anyone can get married? Or that only non-drug-using people whose first sexual experience was after they turned 21 can get married, the rest have to have civil unions?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. KiwiGreg (3,246 comments) says:

    Get over yourselves. Whether Barry and Bernice next door are married or not is as irrelevent to my marriage as whether Barry and Bill or Bernice and Belinda are (or for that matter Barry, Bill and Bernice). I cant see why you all get your knickers in a twist about what other people are doing when it cant possibly affect you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. eszett (2,392 comments) says:

    And for those who haven’t seen it, a pretty good video of a pastor preaching against gay rights in the US. Shows you the mindset of most of the opposition against gay rights.

    Especially the end is worth watching.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. KiwiGreg (3,246 comments) says:

    @ krazykiwi while no one is suggesting people be allowed to marry their pets I think there are many societal advantages to (consensual, informed) multiple partner marriages.

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

    KiwiGreg (2,600) Says:
    October 24th, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    Yes but thats what comes next. Well actually here is a step before this – its the removal of the incest restrictions. Its already in the process in scandinavia.

    Then will come marriage to animals (as is actually already legal in India . not that Id be keen to go live in india for that reason – but its true)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Some people have expressed a concern that churches could be forced to marry same sex couples in contravention to their religious beliefs. I agree this is undesirable. I do not regard this as likely, and note neither does the Human Rights Commission.

    I am an atheist. I am also a (real) Liberal, who believes people should be free to follow their beliefs, so long as they do not harm others. I have a real concern that Chruches will be forced to marry same sex couples. I can not see how they could avoid doing so, without being charged with discrimination.

    I am not reassurred that the Human Rights Commission thinks that situation is not “likely” to occur.

    The Bible is crystal clear on what it says about homosexuals. They are an ABOMINATION !!! Other abominations include: eating Crayfish, winged insects that go upon all fours, eating Owls, loving money, inacurate scales for measuring weight, along with rather allot else. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    David, “Nero did it” is about the worst argument I can imagine. You need to cut that bit out.

    From Suetonius.

    Nero not only abused freeborn boys, and seduced married women, but also forced the Vestal Virgin Rubria. He virtually married the freedwoman Acte, after bribing some ex-consuls to perjure themselves and swear she was of royal birth.
    He tried to turn the boy Sporus into a woman by castration, wed him in the usual manner, including bridal veil and dowry, took him off to the Palace attended by a vast crowd, and proceeded to treat him as his wife. That led to a joke still going the rounds, to the effect that the world would have been a better place if Nero’s father Domitius had married that sort of wife.
    Nero took Sporus, decked out in an Empress’s regalia, to all the Greek assizes and markets in his litter, and later through the Sigillaria quarter at Rome, kissing him fondly now and then.
    He harboured a notorious passion for his own mother, but was prevented from consummating it by the actions of her enemies who feared the proud and headstrong woman would acquire too great an influence. His desire was more apparent after he found a new courtesan who was the very image of Agrippina, for his harem. Some say his incestuous relations with his mother were proven before then, by the stains on his clothing whenever he had accompanied her in her litter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Redbaiter (8,274 comments) says:

    Kiwigreg, maybe you could stop repeating absurdly irrational cliches for an instant and tell readers what particular part of the Conservative argument for preserving the current definition of marriage you disagree with the most.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Lloyd (125 comments) says:

    So.. marriage should be sacrosanct, like it was for Kim Kardashian, Larry King, Newt Gingritch, Tim Bakker and other Christian luminaries. Oh, wait…
    And just for those who worry about church takeovers: marriage celebrants have the right to refuse (on any grounds, which they do not have to disclose) to marry any couple; churches have the same rights. There is absolutely no grounds for compelling a celebrant or a church on the basis of human rights, racism ot any other reason.
    The organisation that MUST accept a request for marriage (provided the couple are legally entitled to marry, i.e. under the grounds currently established or as defined in the new act) and provide a qualified celebrant, is the governmental institution tasked with doing so: at a civil ceremony held by a Registrar of Marriages in a Registry Office.
    All other situations involving celebrants and places of marriage have, and will continue to have, right of refusal for whatever reason they choose. That is not to say some folk will not try and push a celebrant or church around with threats, bribes or even legal action, but the law is very clear that they do so without the sanction of the Civil Rights act (and as such will lose).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. KiwiGreg (3,246 comments) says:

    Well Red, I’m just giving my views. I have no idea what the “Conservative argument” is, given the capital letter I’m assuming some sort of party view.

    If the argument is “it’s the end of society as we know it” it’s a crap argument and I dont need to address it, any more than I need argue with street mutterers

    If it’s “because the bible tells us so”, I don’t believe in (badly written) fairy stories.

    If it’s “gays chose a bad lifestyle” that’s inconsistent with the (many) gays I know

    If it’s “marriage is only for us straights and always has been” I don’t much care for tradition. Personally I’d rather there was no state “marriage” but it is what it is.

    If it’s “marriage is only for having kids” well that’s been rebutted already – sterile couples and unmarried mums and adoption,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Redbaiter (8,274 comments) says:

    Well Red, I’m just giving my views. I have no idea what the “Conservative argument” is, given the capital letter I’m assuming some sort of party view.

    So without even knowing or understanding the alternative view here, or apparently even having the faintest idea what a Conservative might be, you post dozens of messages here attacking them for their stance.

    You’ve just proved what I have always known and that is that so many pro-redefinition advocates are empty headed morons without any idea that alternative arguments do exist. Just utter morons wasting people’s time here with their sledging, a pattern of behaviour that so clearly has its foundation in ignorance and bigotry. You admit it yourself, without even a skerrick of shame.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    @ georgebowling

    Re-read the post. The “marriage equality” meme is just a conduit to drag homosexuality into all branches of the law and government. Sexual militants want an “anything goes” culture and any opposition to such thing is to be met with the full force of the law, as is happening in Canada & Denmark. But this far from over. These sexual revolutionaries will push for polygamous marriages, lowering the age of sexual consent (remember, Labour already touted that one a few years ago until a public outcry killed it off, but it will be back on the agenda in due course) and a public schooling curriculum fully immersed in sexual libertinism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. LiberalismIsASin (288 comments) says:

    Evidence of a sick mind, untethered from reality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. KiwiGreg (3,246 comments) says:

    “You’ve just proved what I have always known and that is that so many pro-redefinition advocates are empty headed morons without any idea that alternative arguments do exist. Just utter morons wasting people’s time here with their sledging, a pattern of behaviour that so clearly has its foundation in ignorance and bigotry.”

    AHHH so THAT’s the Conservative argument. Thanks for clarifying.

    You’ll find irony right next to coppery.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. big bruv (13,678 comments) says:

    Not sure about the Gay adoption side of things DPF but I heartily agree with everything else you said.

    Despite the rants of deranged bible bashers this is about equality, to deny same sex couples the right to be married is discriminatory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. RRM (9,770 comments) says:

    Almost brought a tear to my eye. Well said DPF.

    Let the haters hate..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. big bruv (13,678 comments) says:

    Some of the anti rants on this thread are unintentionally hilarious.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. ricknz (16 comments) says:

    It would be so much better just to remove marriage from any legal definition, I’m tired of providing legal subsides to people to cheap to pay for their own legal agreements.

    Abolish state marriage laws, state adoption laws, and allow for immigration sponsorship of foreigners so anyone can bring their partner(s), friend(s), business partner(s) or whoever here.

    I’ve already had to pay legal fees to opt out the current relationship laws.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    The “marriage equality” meme is just a conduit to drag homosexuality into all branches of the law and government. Sexual militants want an “anything goes” culture and any opposition to such thing is to be met with the full force of the law, as is happening in Canada & Denmark. But this far from over. These sexual revolutionaries will push for polygamous marriages, lowering the age of sexual consent (remember, Labour already touted that one a few years ago until a public outcry killed it off, but it will be back on the agenda in due course) and a public schooling curriculum fully immersed in sexual libertinism.

    You’re being ridiculous. No gay person I know wants an “anything goes” culture. They want the same legal rights as heterosexual people, and that’s it. Promiscuity is not illegal, no matter what your orientation, nor are any number of degenerate acts homo or hetero.

    There’s also no reason to pin blame on homosexuals for any pressure in favour of polygamy or child marriage. If you are looking for that in our society, look to heterosexual religious fundamentalists like the various incarnations of the FLDS. There is virtually no pressure for societal libertinism from the left.

    Liberal New Zealanders learned their lesson a long time ago when it comes to sexual freedom: communities like Centrepoint just open the door to paedophiles and other sexual predators. The loony theorists and philosophers of sex (Reich, etc.) who were the inspiration for this nonsense have been out of fashion since the consequences of their lunacy for children was made public in the 80s and 90s.

    Hippie orgy communities are a relic of the 70s and no progressive person I know wants to re-establish them. All that’s left are a few creepy, geriatric perverts who are into wife swapping.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. kowtow (8,154 comments) says:

    Point 14 says a lot. From a criminal act to a human right in 27 years. How far and fast we’ve fallen.

    The “progressive” agenda is doing very well indeed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. nasska (11,112 comments) says:

    ….” From a criminal act to a human right in 27 years”…..

    Another few year & it will be compulsory. Never mind…you’ll get the hang of it eventually! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    I’m not at all bothered by this bill as (IMO) there are many other issues for the politicians to spend their time on.
    Anyway – an excellent submission, DPF. I don’t think there would be anyone else in the country who puts as much effort into submissions as you do.
    Good on you!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Chinarugby (86 comments) says:

    As a person in both camps – gay and christian. I support DPF’s submission.

    A Christian generally believes that God knew you before you were born and he created all that you inherently are and he alone will judge a person.

    Our faith is in Jesus Christ – not the organised church nor the Pharisees who presume to dictate biblical law as something immovable – The old laws have passed said Christ himself and biblical scholarship is best practiced contextually.

    Christian leaders have for so many years adapted and interpreted passages to suit themselves. Our most dogmatic borthers and sisters of the ‘literalist/fundamentalist’ bent are most happy to pour levitivus type scorn on gays yet blithely and wilfully ignore numerous other passages which don’t suit how they wish to live. Paul tells us to pray ceaselessly – so literally one must never cease pray – do they observe this?
    We are told to chop off our hand should it cause us to sin – how many fundamentalists are minus one or both hands? – as most suredly they have fallen foul of the literal interpretaion of this passage and so it goes on.

    These are silly examples to a rational person yet many who break these literal interpretations are dogmatically bound to old testament scripture regarding gays – without the slightest sense of hipocrasy.

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

    chinarugby-As a person in both camps – gay and christian

    be afraid very afraid- there are several cliques here who are, as we speak piling faggots at the base of stake to have themselves a good old burning.

    The christian haters are bringing the beer and the homo haters are making the sandwiches

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. big bruv (13,678 comments) says:

    Hi Chinarugby.

    You are a brave soul coming here and admitting that you are both gay and christian.

    Be prepared for the religious fundies like Andrea, Lucia and the rest of the narrow minded bigots who will tell you that you have no right to be religious and gay.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    Excellent submission, David.
    Well written and pretty much sums up all the points.

    I have to strongly disagree.

    I believe David has raised a series of unrelated issues in a rapid fire manner that simply confuses this issue. This has been a trait of all ‘redefiners’ throughout this debate.

    One minute he concedes that gay couples are different yet still rules out a different relationship recognition as being possible. This is completely illogical.

    This marriage issue was always about one thing – to force a specific state sanctioned endorsement of homosexuality.

    The state has no business in directing the morals or traditions of it’s citizens, this is tantamount to combining church and state, except the church we are talking about is “the church of the liberal progressive elite” instead of the one that talks about Jesus.

    It’s so blatantly obvious it hurts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Scott (1,763 comments) says:

    DPF is bright, intelligent, erudite and utterly wrong. He is not married and appears to have no intention of being so. Yet here he is, an expert on all things marriage?
    I oppose this radical redefinition of marriage because homosexuality is a sin and against how God has created us.
    In addition it is cultural vandalism to redefine an institution that from time immemorial has been between a man and a woman. Never between man and man.

    [DPF: I have every intention of getting married. The challenge is finding someone whom I could tolerate spending the rest of my life with, and equally importantly someone who could tolerate several decades with me. Others can comment on which is the more difficiult aspect of that!]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. chiz (1,132 comments) says:

    Good submission. The only thing I would add, given that that someone else will be submitting on this point, is that it isn’t necessary to hold a referendum on the matter since the polls are already clear enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. kowtow (8,154 comments) says:

    china rugby

    You’ll have to get past St Paul in Romans I. So it’s not just the Old Testament.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. 0123456789 (13 comments) says:

    The church are worried all the priests will be soon able to marry and they will have on one left to run their cult.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    As a person in both camps – gay and christian. I support DPF’s submission.

    A Christian generally believes that God knew you before you were born and he created all that you inherently are and he alone will judge a person.

    He also said the world is currently in a corrupted state both materially and spiritually and that a lot of things have been distorted from the ideal of his creation including you and I.

    Our faith is in Jesus Christ – not the organised church nor the Pharisees who presume to dictate biblical law as something immovable – The old laws have passed said Christ himself and biblical scholarship is best practiced contextually.

    Absolutely. But God also said the law was good and served a particular purpose, Jesus made it clear that he did no intend to replace the law.

    Christian leaders have for so many years adapted and interpreted passages to suit themselves.

    Correction, Christian ‘people’ have “adapted and interpreted passages to suit themselves” even the gay ones.

    Our most dogmatic borthers and sisters of the ‘literalist/fundamentalist’ bent are most happy to pour levitivus type scorn on gays yet blithely and wilfully ignore numerous other passages which don’t suit how they wish to live. Paul tells us to pray ceaselessly – so literally one must never cease pray – do they observe this?
    We are told to chop off our hand should it cause us to sin – how many fundamentalists are minus one or both hands? – as most suredly they have fallen foul of the literal interpretaion of this passage and so it goes on.

    True, biblical interpretation is often an issue, but if you don’t believe the bible is the word of God, you can’t be a Christian, there is interpretation and then there is cultural rejection based on the ‘oughts’ of today and contemporary culture.

    These are silly examples to a rational person yet many who break these literal interpretations are dogmatically bound to old testament scripture regarding gays – without the slightest sense of hipocrasy.

    What is gay? is it the preeminent component to an individuals existence? or just a small component of their current mortal sexuality?
    Does homosexuality represent the biological mean? or is it a biological anomaly? if you have the creator of the universe on your side (that made them male and female) could he help you resolve this issue in your (and his) own time?

    There are many ways to look at this issue, but most people will refuse to do so for fear of breaking their current position having “adapted and interpreted passages to suit themselves”.

    With God, nothing is impossible……..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Scott (1,763 comments) says:

    China rugby is quite wrong. We must obey all of God’s word. The New testament in Romans 1 clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination. That means it is a really big sin.
    You cannot be Gay and Christian. You can be a Christian struggling with the sin of homosexuality. But remember God is greater than the flesh and will lead us into all righteousness. If our heart is willing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. chiz (1,132 comments) says:

    barry:Recent developments have found that being Gay is actually a preventable medical condition.

    There have been no such findings.

    Along with many other new findings that what the mother eats, does, doesnt do, etc will influence the rest of the fetus’ life. (eg: if the mother eats margarine during pregnancy, then the chances of the child developing asthma vastly increases), theyve also found that the levels of testosterone predicts ones sexual orientation later on.

    No. Research has found evidence that prenatal androgen exposure is correlated with sexual orientation in women but correlation doesn’t causation. Research on gay men has produced mixed results but it looks like there is no effect.

    Whats causing this ? currently unknown, but as with male sperm count collapse its probably caused by synthetic chemicals in the environment. We know that there are many estrogen like chemicals floating around – so they could be involved.

    Declining sperm counts are probably due to declining vitamin D levels from our lifestyles which are increasingly indoors. If your thesis was correct we would expect to see increasing rates of homosexuality, which we don’t, as synthetic chemicals increase in the environment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. big bruv (13,678 comments) says:

    Chinarugby

    I forgot to include Scott in my list of religious fundies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. chiz (1,132 comments) says:

    Scott:I oppose this radical redefinition of marriage because homosexuality is a sin and against how God has created us

    And yet, people are born gay so this God you worship must have made them that way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. David Garrett (6,952 comments) says:

    Yaaaaawn….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. kowtow (8,154 comments) says:

    numbers

    There are something like 18 Catholic denominations .Only the Roman Catholic do not have a married clergy.This is only a tradition,as it is acknowledged the early fathers were married.This rule could be changed at relatively short notice. In fact married clergy from the Anglicans are welcome in Rome so your wishes for an early demise for our “cult” as you rudely put it are misplaced.

    Now fuck off .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    And yet, people are born gay so this God you worship must have made them that way.

    People are born into a screwed up existence that has fallen far from the ideal.

    People are born with any number of ‘anomalies’, gay being but one of them.

    How we deal with this is between us and our maker ultimately, but to presume God is the author of all that is screwed up is not exactly consistent with the gospel message.

    If someone is going to identify as a gay Christian, it isn’t unreasonable to ask them them how they have resolved this or why they ‘blame God’. There are many examples of Christian people that identify as gay yet don’t allow it to define them as a person.

    There are a number of ways these sorts of issues can be resolved with an individual that lead to a fulfilled and successful life, we don’t have to be bound by our circumstances, which is essentially the heart of the gospel.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Griff (7,262 comments) says:

    Love it all the conservonutters and their homophobic rants.

    Butt sex you horrible f undies you are all going to hell were the anti Christ will have butt sex with you daily for the rest of eternity

    No haven for f undies who

    Bring the Christian community into disrepute with bigotry

    Judge your fellow man against the teachings of JC.

    YOU ARE ALL DAMNED TO HELL F UNDIES. :twisted: :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. 0123456789 (13 comments) says:

    David, I fully support your submission.

    Kowtow needs to accept that the church has caused and continues to cause damage to people culture and society, all to protect their historical position. People will look back and 100 years and view the church like people who believed the earth was flat.

    You have to ask, who would leave their children with a member of the clergy?

    The Church needs to move on to somewhere were they are relevant, maybe another planet

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. big bruv (13,678 comments) says:

    “You have to ask, who would leave their children with a member of the clergy?”

    That might be a bit harsh. It might be fairer to say that you would never leave your child with a Catholic Priest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. kowtow (8,154 comments) says:

    griff calls others ranters,bwahahaha.

    Wacko.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Griff, The good book is clear on homos. They are going to hell. The sodomite dammed are an abomination. Along with people who eat Crayfish !

    Here are some more abominations: http://www.dragonlordsnet.com/abomination.htm

    I think there will be allot of us joining the cray eaters and homos in hell fire.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Souvlaki (43 comments) says:

    I’m with Garrett @ 8.23……..thread “cure for insomnia …..”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. nasska (11,112 comments) says:

    Come off it ‘kowtow’……despite the bluster you’re a typical survivor of a 1950’s Catholic education. After years of having original sin & papistry beaten into you I reckon you’re still not sure whether you’re attracted to nuns or penguins. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Griff (7,262 comments) says:

    Actually kea the new testament is pretty clear on the behaviour of those that judge others

    Luke 6:37

    “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;

    I see a eternity of butt sex for kowtow for truly he is unchristian like in his thoughts :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Andrei (2,537 comments) says:

    Kowtow needs to accept that the church has caused and continues to cause damage to people culture and society, all to protect their historical position.

    What a load of horse radish – the Labour and National parties in the short time of their existence have done more damage to culture and society than the Church has in the last 2000 years – indeed it is no coincidence that the most orderly and civil socities today are those with a long Christian heritage.

    You have to ask, who would leave their children with a member of the clergy?

    Who’d leave their children with a BBC presenter, school teachers and scout masters are pretty dodgy also.

    It is hard to imagine a more pernicious thing for the good of society than Gay marriage, it is a civilization ender but libbies are too damn stupid to comprehend why – they seem to think the purpose of existence is to make their genitals feel good or something – idiots

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. 0123456789 (13 comments) says:

    nasska

    “survivor of a 1950′s Catholic education” or abuse, indoctrination, intimidation, control, rape, sodomy…………………………..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. kowtow (8,154 comments) says:

    In the NZ context ,who’d leave their child with a step dad?

    griff ‘s studiously ignoring Romans I,while cherry picking the nice butts,bits.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. 0123456789 (13 comments) says:

    Andrei

    Good points, except the scouts and the BBC are newbies to the sport and don’t promote child abusers and cover it up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. nasska (11,112 comments) says:

    …”they seem to think the purpose of existence is to make their genitals feel good or something – idiots”…..

    So you reckon following the old commands to cut off your hands & put out your eyes if they upset you should be extended to genitals. Would sort out a few problems.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. nasska (11,112 comments) says:

    0123456789

    He’s never let on but the 50’s were a terrible time to be an altar boy. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. chiz (1,132 comments) says:

    A number of christians maintain that Romans I is referring to a pagan festival in Rome that is largely unknown to modern audiences.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Griff (7,262 comments) says:

    No I am quoting your lord and savour directly do not judge you have no right to its very clear in the teachings of Christ.

    oh sorry that’s right you are a Roman catholic you worship the pope not the teachings of Christ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. 0123456789 (13 comments) says:

    Everyone should rank who they would trust their children with in order of less likely to most, below are mine;

    1. A Priest
    2. Any other clergy
    3. A member of the Christian Heritage Party
    4. A Scout Leader
    5. A drug addict
    6. A single man over 35 living with his mother or a politician
    7. A Sports Coach
    8. A Teacher
    6. A committed (married) Gay Couple
    7. A member of my family
    8. A heterosexual couple

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Reid (16,189 comments) says:

    A same sex couple is of course different to a couple of the opposition gender. But this doesn’t mean that the law should discriminate in not allowing same sex couples to marry. Same sex couples fall in love, commit to each other, form households and raise children – the core of being a family.

    Crikey.

    Really?

    A child needs the whole of humanity to make themselves whole. Gay couples offer only half of that. A healthy psyche consists of both ying and yang, change that, and you get faltered development. This is why we see such social destruction today, because many kids aren’t getting both. So why do we want to add yet another factor which will make it even worse, by allowing gay adoption?

    No civilisation in history, no matter how gay, has ever implemented this practice. Not even the Greeks.

    This is not about the adoptive parents at all, it’s about the kids, so step out of the discrimination hysteria for a second, and consider your own childhood. Regardless of what it actually was, what would have been ideal, for you? Both a mum and a dad?

    I’d suggest very few would say otherwise. If they did it would be because they have a grudge against one or the other of their parents or because they’re gay themselves and they think that not agreeing with that proposition would be a betrayal of “their cause” which means of course, they’re not thinking of the kids, they’re thinking of themselves.

    But that’s the answer, isn’t it. And everyone knows it, because we are all connected and we all innately know what’s right and what isn’t.

    So I’d just recommend to the pwogwessives out there who think that gay adoption is such a weally neaty idea, to consider themselves as a kid in a gay parent relationship, vs a kid in a normal parental relationship, and make an honest assessment, from a kid’s perspective.

    There’s a reason why society is increasingly unhealthy and that’s the breakdown bordering on complete evisceration, of the family unit, formerly known as mum, dad and kids. But no, these days, its not just evisceration, it’s bastardisation of it, the final frontier.

    If it’s not that, then what is it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. big bruv (13,678 comments) says:

    Did somebody mention Jimmy Saville?

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

    Seems he was a Roman Catholic, I wonder if he ever trained to be a priest?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. kowtow (8,154 comments) says:

    numbers doesn’t keep up with the news> BBC did promote and cover up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. kowtow (8,154 comments) says:

    bigot bruv brings Catholicism to the hate fest,as usual.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. 0123456789 (13 comments) says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUEfF_olEik

    A good NZ non Catholic but still Christian leader……

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. big bruv (13,678 comments) says:

    numbers

    Great link, all that proves is that all religion is evil.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. big bruv (13,678 comments) says:

    kowtow

    When it comes to hate fests the Catholics are number one. Nobody comes near them for hatred, bigotry, evil and lies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Reid (16,189 comments) says:

    You must distinguish between Churches and Followers bb, lest fallacy and misunderstanding arise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. 0123456789 (13 comments) says:

    kowtow

    You are correct, BBC 1/ Church 1,000,000. Lets disband the church first then get on to the evil BBC.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. kowtow (8,154 comments) says:

    Not even Cantabrians?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. big bruv (13,678 comments) says:

    kowtow

    Good point. There are certainly some Cantabs who are right up there when it comes to hatred.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. kowtow (8,154 comments) says:

    “kowtow you are correct”

    Tell me something I didn’t know.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. SPC (5,537 comments) says:

    Reid, what does “gay adoption” change?

    A gay father or lesbian mother has natural custody of his child. They and their partner live with the child now, but only one is a parent in legal terms.

    If they marry their partner, then they are both parents automatically. If they do not, there is still the option of adoption. But none of this changes living arrangements for the child.

    As for adoption of children by couples not related to the child – the numbers are quite low, the same sex partner subset would be very small.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Reid (16,189 comments) says:

    Reid, what does “gay adoption” change?

    SPC you ask that then you talk about nothing but the parents?

    Read my 9:26 again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    There’s a reason why society is increasingly unhealthy and that’s the breakdown bordering on complete evisceration, of the family unit, formerly known as mum, dad and kids. But no, these days, its not just evisceration, it’s bastardisation of it, the final frontier.

    If it’s not that, then what is it?

    Reid, you are one of the very few that seem to understand the bigger picture on this issue – good on ya mate, but sadly, I think there’s a momentum that has developed that will push this ‘experiment’ to new heights and create new casualties.

    When the state rejects one religion and picks up the cause of another, everyone should be concerned, even if people hate Christianity, sometimes ‘the devil you know’ is a safer bet than a developing poorly defined moralistic crusade that would make the most tyrannical popes blush.

    Human history is littered with these epochs and the tyranny that emerges is ultimately always pinned on them.

    We are bound to see history repeat I guess.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Reid (16,189 comments) says:

    …but sadly, I think there’s a momentum that has developed that will push this ‘experiment’ to new heights and create new casualties..

    Good on you too Shunda.

    You should have said “…and sadly…” because yes, this will happen. Sadly, people like us will continue to point out the consequences. Sadly, we will be marginalised so as to make us apparently a ‘voice in the wilderness.’ Sadly this marginalisation won’t be noticed by the fervent “human wights” cwowd, wapted us as they are in their “human wights” hallucinations, spectacularly failing to see the “human wights” violations against children, occurring in their midst.

    But hey, BAU isn’t it Shunda. Nothing to see here. No. Nothing at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. 0123456789 (13 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda

    The family unit as a man and a woman is a recent thing in human terms. Children were traditionally reared by females only. So your Christian ‘epoch’ is just that, one point in time to be replaced by something more rational.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Reid (16,189 comments) says:

    Numbers on the assumption Shunda won’t reply, the father was home from hunting and back in the hut most nights. Providing the role model to his kids. Just as the mother did her bit during the day. What about this aspect of both humanity and history, going back through simply eons and eons and eons, don’t you understand?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    The family unit as a man and a woman is a recent thing in human terms.

    Not in the most successful or enduring societies, it was precisely these values that enabled ‘the west’ to rise.

    Children were traditionally reared by females only. So your Christian ‘epoch’ is just that, one point in time to be replaced by something more rational.

    So you see homosexual relationships as a more rational way of raising children than heterosexual?

    Sometimes the ‘ideal’ is actually a very good starting point, sometimes the solution is not very far from the ideal.

    The epoch I am concerned about is when the state becomes the sole arbiter of a nations morals, because this issue is about morals and the seeking of a specific moral endorsement of the state toward a certain group.

    The state has no business in defining the morals or traditions of its citizens, to do so is the beginning of tyranny.

    There is no pressing need for this legislation, indeed, even the majority of homosexuals polled on the subject can’t understand the fuss and don’t care about the institution of marriage or its redefinition.

    It is impossible to ignore this and the fact that the people primarily driving this legislation are not gay, but simply adherents of a new way of interpreting morality. These people are effectively participants of a broad, poorly defined religion without a deity (or not clearly defined deity anyway) and the state has no more business in appeasing their goals and aims as it does to more traditional religious groups.

    The individual issues involved are only a small part of the underlying threat, it is about precedent, political power and legitimate authority and a corruption of these things to varying degrees.

    No legislation like this has ever been passed in this nation before, and when it passes, watch for those who will implement a strategy to ‘right the wrongs’ of our past and implement specific and targeted campaigns against opposing religious groups and within educational institutions.

    This is about specific moral endorsement and state interference, it is not about human rights or injustice.

    Tyranny of one form or another always follows these events, history (and even recent history) is absolutely littered with such occurrences.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. 0123456789 (13 comments) says:

    sorry Reid(tard), if you believe it happened like that and the men had only one woman that they breed with…etc etc…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    sorry Reid(tard), if you believe it happened like that and the men had only one woman that they breed with…etc etc…

    Oh, I get it, you’re talking about Neanderthals, oh wait, nope, there’s still evidence of family units there, hmmm….uuummmm………Australopithecus perhaps?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Jim (407 comments) says:

    This is about specific moral endorsement and state interference, it is not about human rights or injustice.

    Absolutely. It’s in the “don’t like it: redefine it” class of equality measures. Lets redefine short and tall, poor and rich, talented and inept while we are at it.

    I have nothing against gay couples, and the ones that I count among my friends couldn’t care less. Does anyone have any stats on the demand for this, and the uptake of civil unions between same-sex couples? Does it have any practical difference to a civil union as treated under law?

    The members bill boasts that it is changing the act to be applied in a non-discriminatory manner (consistent with irreproachable BORA and HRA) and then proceeds to discriminate based on family status (list of relatives one can not marry) – discrimination prohibited by the HRA:

    “Prohibited grounds of discrimination
    (l)family status, which means—
    (iv)being a relative of a particular person:”

    Face it: marriage is discriminatory by nature.

    Freedom of association, expression, movement, etc, are human rights. Marriage, flat-screen TVs, and divorce are not.

    I almost couldn’t care less about this bill but for the incredibly inflated righteousness with which it is promoted, when it appears in practice to be nothing more than window dressing.

    Old-fashioned ideas of families (mum, dad, kids) are already long erased from all NZ govt documentation (replaced with you, your children, your partner (de-facto, civil, married, other), your partner’s children) so I don’t see a practical impact there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,570 comments) says:

    Thankfully only a tiny minority of what we think are christian actually believe the idiocy that pollutes this page. God made gays, just as he created gay animals. Maybe we should just legislate for Andrei to be wed to Redbaiter so that both can get laid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    Thankfully only a tiny minority of what we think are christian actually believe the idiocy that pollutes this page.

    The idiocy is not to do with Christians, it is to do with the idiots that are promoting exactly what they claim to abhor, namely, legislating morality.

    Here it is in a nutshell.

    The State has an interest in actual human rights issues, not perceived human rights issues.

    The State has an interest in legal equality, not redefining the exclusive traditions (that harm no one) of its citizens.

    There are no “hoards of homo’s” demanding a law change, just an extremely vociferous new ‘liberal religion’ demanding state compliance of its values and objectives for society.
    They are demanding the state specifically endorses their version of morality, there is no other valid interpretation.

    If the Christian church was doing this you would all be horrified, but with this lot you openly support a corruption of state power, legitimacy and authority.

    The separation of church and state is as important with the Christian religion as it is with any other, that the ‘redefiners’ come from a ‘broad church’ is absolutely irrelevant, they are seeking to legislate morality and that’s all there is to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. jgw739 (26 comments) says:

    Does anyone recall the story of the cities of Sodom & Gomorrah and why were they destroyed? Something to do with being a bunch of sexual deviants….. so much so that the word sodomy still exists in todays language.

    Only a deviant would prefer to play in the sewer instead of the pool.

    Gay marriage – it’s the thin(ish) end of the wedge folks, and as others have said, it opens the door to marriages based on polygamy, incest, child-sex and bestiality. At what point do you draw the line?? At what point is it not ‘discrimination’ and justified to keep marriage the way it is? Or will you be satisfied when you’ve got what you want and go on to become the new bigots by saying that polygamy, etc is wrong? Double-standards much?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Ryan Sproull (7,093 comments) says:

    Gay marriage – it’s the thin(ish) end of the wedge folks, and as others have said, it opens the door to marriages based on polygamy, incest, child-sex and bestiality. At what point do you draw the line??

    You draw the line at consenting adults, jgw739. So no child-sex, no bestiality, possibly incest, probably polygamy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. chiz (1,132 comments) says:

    jgw739:Does anyone recall the story of the cities of Sodom & Gomorrah and why were they destroyed? Something to do with being a bunch of sexual deviants

    No. Sodom & Gomorrah were destroyed because they of their attitude to strangers. Rather than sharing their bounty with any visitors, and being hospitable to them, they would rape them, including the men. And for their attitude, they were destroyed.

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

    Very good submission and a nice template on submissions for other bills. Thanks

    Now
    I counted at least 4 logical fallacies in the complaints against your submission…….shame the classics are no longer taught. Being able to argue logic and rhetoric would wipe out 90% of the comments section of the internet but at least make the remaining 10% valid and enjoyable

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

    SO David when you made your case at 15 that same sex marriage was very traditional did you tell the select committee that Neros same sex marriage consisted of castrating a male slave so as to make him female and marrying him, did you mention he also had investors unions with his mother, did you also mention that we know of this from roman authors of the time who cited it as evidence of Nero’s depravity precisely because they and expected there readers to see it as abnormal. Did you mention these facts or did you just cite Nero as evidence that same sex marriage was traditional because Louisa Wall used this argument in the house and checking the facts was just to messy..

    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.