Copeland on same sex marriage

January 25th, 2013 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

writes in the Dom Post:

The debate on same-sex marriage lacks context because its promoters have failed to take into account the equal rights already established in New Zealand law for same-sex couples.

Everyone remembers the passing of the Civil Unions Act in late 2004 because of the publicity it generated. The Civil Unions Act was followed by a companion Relationships (Statutory References) Act in early 2005 – the Relationships Act. It was passed by Parliament without fanfare and little publicity. It has therefore been missing from this debate because its purpose and legal effects are largely unknown to New Zealanders. Yet it is of crucial importance.

So what did the Relationships Act do? It amended more then 150 acts of Parliament to add, after every reference to “marriage”, the words “civil union and de facto” so there would be a complete and perfect legal equality between marriage, civil unions and heterosexual or homosexual de facto relationships. It means all couples, in any of these relationships, have the same rights under New Zealand law, with the possible exception of the adoption law.

This is a valid argument against . It is not one I agree with but it is a better argument than Colin Craig’s views that people choose to be gay.

Gordon Copeland is a former MP who was in Parliament in 2004-2005 when the Civil Unions and Relationships (Statutory References) Acts were passed. He opposed both.

This is what amuses me. You vote against bills to give same sex couples any legal recognition at all, and then use the fact you were defeated as an argument for why the law is now great and no further changes are needed.

It’s a bit like voting against women getting the vote, and then once you lose that vote arguing women don’t need to be able to stand for Parliament also because they have the vote, and that is what matters.

Tags: ,

190 Responses to “Copeland on same sex marriage”

  1. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    I think your statement “You vote against bills to give same sex couples any legal recognition at all, and then use the fact you were defeated as an argument for why the law is now great and no further changes are needed” is misrepresenting Gordon Copeland’s argument, David.

    The way I read his article is that yes, he opposed the Civil Unions and Relationships (Statutory References) Acts. However, they were passed. So rather than throwing a hissy fit and going “Wah wah, it’s not fair that these Acts were passed”, he has instead accepted that this is now the reality of New Zealand. It is a fact that we now have Civil Unions. Copeland then goes on to expand what bearing this current reality has on the attempts to redefine the Marriage Act.

    He’s not saying “the (Civil Union) law is great”, as you claim; he’s merely saying that for better or worse, we do have the Civil Union law, so let’s keep that in mind when looking at this new proposal.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 53 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    This is what amuses me. You vote against bills to give same sex couples any legal recognition at all, and then use the fact you were defeated as an argument for why the law is now great and no further changes are needed.

    You know full well David that everyone who was half awake furing the civil union thing was fully aware that is was just part of the incremental creep toward “same sex marriage” which New Zealanders hadn’t been softened up enough yet for.

    And we also did know consequences of the the Relationships Act which has the effect of rendering marriage less relevnt since it grants it benefits and liabilities to defacto couples.

    The real target, long term is the Marxist wet dream of no marriage at all and you by supporting this nonense are just being a useful idiot for those who remake society in the image of a “secualar paradise” which in fact like all brave new worlds will be a hell.

    The silly thing of course is you reef fish who are going along with this modern fad cannot see that in the longer term the progressive fantasy of no marriage, a promiscuous population of slaves socialized in the State nurseries because the bourgeois institution of the family has withered away will never happen.

    No- while the population of western societies degrade because the only people within them actually having significant numbers children are the underclasses who don’t give a shit other societies which haven’t lost their marbles will move in to fill the vacuum create by the children Nigel and Brian are biologically incapable of producing.

    The whole thing is contemptably stupid

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 37 Thumb down 23 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Nick K (1,259 comments) says:

    The real target, long term is the Marxist wet dream of no marriage at all and you by supporting this nonense are just being a useful idiot for those who remake society in the image of a “secualar paradise” which in fact like all brave new worlds will be a hell.

    Yeah, I think that’s written in the purpose clause of the Bill.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. radvad (772 comments) says:

    I cannot believe the conservatism of both sides of this argument. In reality all this bill achieves is it gives politicians more control over the lives of more people. Once politicians took it upon themselves to define marriage, or anything else for that matter, it was always going to be subject to change and it always will be.

    I do not wish for political approval for the relationship I have with my wife. All I ask is that the State provide a legal system to enable either of us to seek redress for any breach of the agreement we have with each other. Beyond that there should be no State involvement and we should all be able to enter into the type of relationship we wish to have, and yes, that includes a bigamous relationship.

    I hate political interference in the decisions that a free and responsible population should make for themselves. I am equally scornful of supposed classical liberals who campaign for more government control.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    The real target, long term is the Marxist wet dream of no marriage at all

    Yeah, Andrei, you have seen through us all and revealed our masterplan.
    We have always thought that the best way to stop straight people from marrying is to allow gay people to marry.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. big bruv (14,165 comments) says:

    Having realised that the god botherer argument has not worked Andrei moves onto the old fashioned reds under the beds attack.

    “The real target, long term is the Marxist wet dream of no marriage at all”

    Is Andrei related to Redbaiter?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    Copeland provides a well reasoned argument…to a point.

    What he fails to recognise is than in establishing Civil Unions, the government of the day created a compromise. Those who wanted same sex marriage wanted exactly that. Marriage. They wanted society to recognise their relationships in the same way that it recognises the relationships of heterosexual couples.

    What they got was a legal compromise that sets Same Sex couples apart. While Civil Unions have the same legal status, it does not have the same social status, as evidenced by the discussion from those who would deny same sex couples that status. Same sex couples do not want a compromise.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Mobile Michael (464 comments) says:

    Gay and Lesbian couples are already living together and many have had ceremonies pledging lifetime commitment, whether they be civil union or another form of ceremony. Granting them the right to marry will make not one iota of difference to the rest of us as there is already no obligation on a marraige celebrant to perform a wedding for any couple if they choose not to – you can’t just rock up to a Catholic Priest and request a wedding, they will insist that you do a preparatory programme.

    Frankly, I just wish that Parliament just passes the law in one go and gets it over with – the entrenched positions of both sides is well known, the process is a waste of time.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    The thing red and Andrei have in common is conservonuttery
    They may not be related but it certainly increases the chance of interbreeding. :lol:

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    What they got was a legal compromise that sets Same Sex couples apart.

    They are set apart by their very nature – they are non procreative and despite all their powers Governments cannot change this

    it does not have the same social status, as evidenced by the discussion from those who would deny same sex couples that status.

    Why should it have the “same social status”? The social status given to marriage in socities that have not fallen down the rabbit hole is accrued because of the social function marriage provides, that is the ideal nursery for the replenishment of the population, something that is a fundamental economic activity

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 29 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. radvad (772 comments) says:

    It would be more helpful if those who disagree with Andrei explained why they disagree. Mocking and sneering serves no purpose except to indicate that deep down you agree with him.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    They are set apart by their very nature – they are non procreative and despite all their powers Governments cannot change this

    Completely and utterly irrelevant.
    There is neither a requirement or necessity of ability or intention to procreate for marriage today.

    All you are doing is insulting all the loving straight marriages who cannot or choose not to have children merely to provide you with a spurious argument in your agenda.

    .

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    It simple.

    keep you religious beliefs out of the lives of others.

    They are yours and not applicable in any way to those that do not share your belief in invisible sky pixies.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    I disagree with Andrei because I think marriage is about committed legal relationships. Procreation is just a part of that, and can and does happen without marrage.

    In fact with an escalating world population it is sensible to moderate procreation.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    Andrei

    Are you implying that heterosexual couples who are married and do not have children, either by choice or because of infertility, should be lower down on your totem pole because of it?

    Procreation should not be the defining characteristic of a marriage. It happens outside the bounds of marriage far too often to be considered a part of the institution. Marriage is now a recognition by the participants that the relationship has progressed to a point where the couple pledge to spend the rest of their lives together. For Richer, For Poorer, For Better, For Worse, In Sickness and In Health.

    If children result, and they do not always do so, it does not make the act of committing two lives to each other any more or less valid. The commitment is the essence of the union, and the fact that the two people may be two men, two women or one of each, dies not in any way diminish my marriage, my relationship with my wife or the status of my two children.

    What is important is the love that made all this possible, and this love is the universal that should be universally recognised.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. CHFR (236 comments) says:

    One question I have for the pro crowd is how far you expect the marriage to be recognised. It is ok in NZ to say “we are married” and get a double room in a hotel but do you also expect this marriage to be recognised in say Dubai or Iran with none of the usual repercuisions?

    To me this has always been the question if recognition of your relationship is the goal.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    Pete George at 8:16 am:

    In fact with an escalating world population it is sensible to moderate procreation.

    Absolutely! In fact, let’s bring in China’s one-child policy! Brilliant idea! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Colville (2,300 comments) says:

    In fact with an escalating world population it is sensible to moderate procreation.

    Absolutely! In fact, let’s bring in China’s one-child policy! Brilliant idea!

    Actually that is the Gweens next policy announcment…. its the only way that you are able to fit a “family” in a $300K Auckland house! :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. RRM (10,034 comments) says:

    Schmeh.

    Enjoy your indian summer, homophobes.

    You know compulsory buttsex is coming ;-)

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Adele Keyshia (39 comments) says:

    I agree with Copeland in that for the Civil Union and Relationship legislation does for the most part afford the same legal rights to marriage, civil unions and heterosexual or homosexual de facto relationships. The reality of the matter is however, that to limit the importance of marriage to what rights it prescribes under the law is to deny the very nature of marriage itself. Marriage has become a social construction (though it has religious origins) and the amount of utility many couple gain from using it as a tool to express their love is significant. The reality is marriage may not be a perfect institution but to deny it from someone based on they’re sexuality is discrimination. It is clearly important to a lot of gay people and as such must have some importance beyond equal legal rights that it prescribes

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    It’s a bit like voting against women getting the vote…

    We did not get to “vote” on that issue. It is therefore undemocratic. Allowing women to vote has clearly been a mistake and is directly responsible for many of today’s social ills. The whole “gay marriage” thing is promoted by far left feminists, not by gays. Our politicians try and appease the unsound thinking of unstable women in order to buy votes. Giving women the vote is why we have such a messed up socialist country that is in decline. They are at the forefront of hard line socialism, based on “feelings” not on fact.

    It is not “gays” that are undermining our society, it is your lady friend. As lovely as they are, they lack the capacity to see the bigger picture and vote according to what is best for society as they relate to the world as a personal issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. kowtow (8,784 comments) says:

    Wall and her supporters claim that this is about “equality”. It’s not .It’s about legislative redefining of marriage to include homosexuals.
    This is homosexual activism,nothing else.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 26 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. radvad (772 comments) says:

    I have always considered the main purpose of marriage is to place protections around the only relationship that is capable of producing children. Whether or not each individual relationship does produce children is irrelevant to this definition. These protections have been steadily eroded by politicians over recent decades, mainly because they can change it and they will always respond to the sqeakiest wheel and always will.

    Of course there are other reasons to marry (even gold digging heh) all of which can be can be fulfilled without seeking approval of politicians.

    However I would never impose my version of marriage on others (although I would recommend it) and I wish politicians would also stop interfering in our decision making.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Andrei:

    Marriage has become a social construction (though it has religious origins)

    Yes, it is an evolving and variable social consruct (different laws and different traditions in different societies).

    But why do you think it has religious origins?

    Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage. The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time. Various cultures have had their own theories on the origin of marriage.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History_of_marriage

    Types of marriages have existed in ancient Greece, China, the Americas etc which suggests they have been societal constructs regardless of varying religious beliefs.

    In fact there are strong indications that religion is also a societal construct, so any marriage traditions based on religion will also be societal constructs.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    kowtow:

    This is homosexual activism,nothing else.

    Bollocks.

    I’m not a homosexual activist but support the change. Most people who support the change are neither homosexuals nor activists.

    It would be more accurate to say that many of the opponents of change are anti-homosexual activists.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Absolutely! In fact, let’s bring in China’s one-child policy! Brilliant idea!

    No need. We can reduce the population, and our contribution to co2 AGW, by simply not paying women to have kids. The DPB benefit and Working for Families benefit, are unaffordable election bribes. Fucking is a career option exclusively provided for women. The majority of NZ women, with kids, are being paid to have sex. They are worse than hookers, as their tax paying clients have no choice but to support them.

    If you conservatives want to preserve traditional values, then focus on unmarried & unsupported women spitting out sprogs to various unknown men and being paid to do it. A few homos are NOT the issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    radvad:

    I have always considered the main purpose of marriage is to place protections around the only relationship that is capable of producing children.

    Ownership has been a major factor in marriage. In the past this often effectively meant that a man owned his wife and all related property. In western society this has only really changed in the last century.

    Marriage in New Zealand is quite different today than it was 100 years ago. Tweaking the law so that same sex couples can marry is a very minor societal change in comparison.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    I disagree with Andrei because I think marriage is about committed legal relationships.

    Pete George, that is an empty, meaningless slogan.

    We do not live in a And they all lived happily ever after fairy tale.

    We all wear out and die, an unpalatable truth though that be.

    But the culture can persist provided that during that part of our life where we are healthy and productive we produce enough offspring to replace ourselves and to take over from us as we begin our decline towards our eventual death.

    For New Zealand as a nation to continue it is vital that all the people needed for it to continue to function as a developed nation continue to be conceived and raised socialized in the ways of a civilized society – you know people who will be the engineers, doctors, nurses, hangers of wires on telephone poles, cosmetic counter dolly birds and so forth

    And you need to encourage and support the people who can undertake this essential activity to do so.

    This is not rocket science.

    Nor is it rocket science that actually walking the walk and raising the people who will carry the torch after we have gone is a time consuming, expensive and often unglamourous and unromantic undertaking. So we have for millenia put it on a pedastal and those cultures that have have peristed while those that have slipped into pointless hedonism have gone the way of the dodo.

    We are going the way of the dodo

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    I’m not a homosexual activist but support the change. Most people who support the change are neither homosexuals nor activists.

    A point that is often over looked in these discussions.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    I have always considered the main purpose of marriage is to place protections around the only relationship that is capable of producing children.

    But it isn’t the only relationship capable of producing children. The following also can:

    – De facto
    – Civil Union
    – One night stand

    All are capable of producing children. Probably because it is sex or IVF that enables procreation, not the institute of marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    And you need to encourage and support the people who can undertake this essential activity to do so.

    Andrei, are you suggesting the state must “encourage” hetrosexuals to have sex ?

    As previously noted, we already pay women to spit out kids, even if they have no way of supporting them. This costs billions of tax dollars. What more do you expect the state to do …?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. 3-coil (1,222 comments) says:

    Gays are not the only minority group that do not fit the current criteria for “marriage” or who would like the current NZ definition of “marriage” to be changed to allow them to qualify. These other minorities presumably have the same rights as the homosexual lobbyists to demand that “marriage” is redefined to allow their different requirements to be accommodated too.

    For example Muslim and Mormon communities (minorities here in NZ) have long accepted that men can have multiple wives – should NZ marriage be redefined to allow polygamy? Do we then change the bigamy laws too?

    It will be hard to argue that it’s okay to “discriminate” against some minorities, but that “discriminating” against gays is intolerable. Or do some minority groups have more rights than others?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    Most people who support the change are neither homosexuals nor activists.

    Maybe not but they certainly are gulliable fools

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    And you need to encourage and support the people who can undertake this essential activity to do so.

    And just how exactly does allowing same-sex couples to marry discourage or erode support to heterosexual couples?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    I hope DPF is not allowing “women” to vote on my 8:46 post ! ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. CHFR (236 comments) says:

    After we legalise Gay Marriage then maybe we go for polyamorous marriage. The kite is already being flown

    http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/the-power-of-three-20130114-2co9h.html

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    Polygamy
    Again why is it your business what consenting adults do together ?.
    Andrei repeatedly claims that marriage is a institution owned by religion. Other branches of the monotheistic religion he practices allow polygamy in particular Muslims and Mormons. Same god different prophets.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Fletch (6,497 comments) says:

    I read an argument against same-sex marriage this morning which I thought was quite simple and to the point.
    Here’s some of the good bits –

    All Americans stand equally before the law and have their civil rights equally protected—all have equal protection for their rights to free speech, religious liberty, free association, and every other traditional civil liberty. The question is whether a new “civil right”—the right to have the government and private citizens recognize your same-sex sexual partnership as a marriage—ought to be created, redefining marriage in the process.

    “The love we commit to one another,” just as such, is none of the government’s business. The government isn’t in the business of affirming our loves. Rather it leaves consenting adults free to live and love as they choose.

    Contrary to what some say, there is no ban on same-sex marriage. Nothing about it is illegal. In all 50 states, two people of the same sex can choose to live together, choose to join a religious community that blesses their relationship, and choose a workplace offering them various joint benefits. Many liberal houses of worship and progressive businesses have voluntarily decided to do so. There’s nothing illegal about this. There’s no ban on it.

    What’s at issue is whether the government will recognize such relationships as marriages—and then force every citizen and business to do so as well. At issue is whether policy will coerce and compel others to recognize and affirm same-sex relationships as marriages.

    Being created equal doesn’t entail or require redefining marriage. Every marriage policy draws lines, leaving out some types of relationships. But equality forbids arbitrary line-drawing. Determining which lines are arbitrary requires us to answer two questions:

    1)      What is marriage?

    2)      Why does it matter for policy?

    Reflecting on these questions reveals why there’s nothing “equal” about redefining marriage to eliminate the norm of sexual complementarity. Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces. And as ample social science has shown, children tend to do best when reared by their mother and father.

    Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits the public good. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means to ensure the well-being of future citizens. State recognition of marriage protects children by incentivizing adults to commit permanently and exclusively to each other and their children.

    While respecting everyone’s liberty, government rightly recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage between a man and woman as the ideal institution for procreative love, childbearing, and child-rearing. Recognizing that we are all created equal doesn’t challenge this historic understanding.

    http://blog.heritage.org/2013/01/24/obama-equality-and-same-sex-marriage/

    I think that highlighted part is important. If same-sex marriage goes through it will compel and coerce others to recognize and affirm same-sex marriage. And if they don’t? WHat then?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    The state does not decide what Christian Marriage is. Christians do.

    You conservative Christians just stick to your guns. Homos are not trying to change you and they have no power to do so.

    I am an atheist and are straight. But I see no conflict with either group. In my world there is room for both sides.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. CHFR (236 comments) says:

    Yeah Griff if I want to have sex with my dog then it is all ok. After all he is consenting and and adult.

    I am sorry but you just prove the point Andrei was making. There has to be a place at which society says enough, just because you don’t like where that place is then too bad. Sometimes the silent majority out rules the vocal minority.

    I don’t bother participating in these discussions because I just get told my opinion is not valid. It is just as valid as everyone elses just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t make either me ot you wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. ChardonnayGuy (1,217 comments) says:

    Incidentally, it should also be recalled that Copeland tried to mangle the Human Rights Act 1993 and Bill of Rights Act 1990 by removing marital status and family status from it and pre-emptively trying to introduce a discriminatory section into the Marriage Act 1955, back in December 2005. He failed. The current Prime Minister and numerous other National MPs voted against it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    Yeah Griff if I want to have sex with my dog then it is all ok. After all he is consenting and and adult.

    Well well your dog wants to marry you good luck and have a nice honeymoon :lol:

    RRM We may have to expand the compulsory butt sex to include interspecies butt sex. Why was this not included in the great progressive plan to destroy society ?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    CHFR (98) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 9:38 am
    Yeah Griff if I want to have sex with my dog then it is all ok. After all he is consenting and and adult.

    Your dog consented to having sex with you? Well done!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Fletch (6,497 comments) says:

    Kea (1,850) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 9:37 am
    The state does not decide what Christian Marriage is. Christians do.

    Kea, that’s a fair enough statement, but you don’t have to be Christian to become married. Jews, Buddists, Muslims, Hindus and many other faiths and cultures all accept that marriage is between a man and a woman. Even atheists.

    Government didn’t invent marriage – it just affirms what is already there. As such they should not be able to arbitrarily change it. It would be like the Govt stepping in and creating a new law saying that I am legally your brother because, well, you feel it was your civil right to have a brother and you didn’t have one and it’s not fair you should be denied that familial relationship.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    I don’t bother participating in these discussions because I just get told my opinion is not valid.

    CHFR, Harden up. We all get told all sorts of unflattering things. You got 2 votes already.

    Yeah Griff if I want to have sex with my dog then it is all ok. After all he is consenting and and adult.

    Yes if it does not harm the dog, then go for it. The issue here is not some arbitrary adopted morality, the issue is -does it cause harm to others- ? If it does not, then it is none of our business.

    If you go the other way, then how would you feel if the government banned religion, on the very sound basis that it causes war and conflict ?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. ChardonnayGuy (1,217 comments) says:

    Please, do not suggest zoophilia in this context. Cats may be covertly perusing this website, chance upon this thread, work out that they’ll get inheritance rights to lifelong pampering if they can contract pet-human marriage, then contrive to polish off their humans under ambiguous circumstances. I’ve had one or two Machivellean mogs who would do so. Knew I should never have picked up that Leo Strauss volume on Machiavelli at the garage sale…:)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Fletch, I see your point, but you contradict yourself in your comment. The state does not define Christian Marriage. It is not a legal matter, but a matter of your personal belief.

    I see a clear line between the state defined legal marriage and the marriage of belief and custom.

    I am ok with gay marriage. (I am not ok with them adopting kids though.) I see some strong arguments from those who oppose it and respect their point of view. However, I am uncomfortable with the state interfering with the definition of our personal relationships. “Each to his own” sounds trite, but pretty much states my view. If your a Christian, then sit back and let God sort them out.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Fletch (6,497 comments) says:

    Ps, it’s worth reading the whole of Copeland’s article as he makes many more valid points. It’s very good.

    In 1893, New Zealand was the first nation to grant women the vote, but we did not do that by redefining men to include women, but rather by recognising the equality of women. In the same way the Relationships Act does not alter the definition of marriage but rather recognises the equality of same-sex unions, be they civil union or de facto, at law.

    The mantra of “marriage equality” needs to be viewed against that background. In my view, that mantra does not stand up to scrutiny because all of us can surely agree that a marriage between a man and a woman is biologically different from a union between two women or two men. Just as women and men are different, so those relationships are different (de facto relationships are different again because they exist in fact, but involve couples who are not married or in civil unions). Let us not forget that New Zealand law does permit homosexuals, who so choose, to marry and some have.

    Recognition of the reality that women and men are biologically different does not constitute discrimination, inequality or a denial of rights. We separate women and men for sport and boys and girls for sport and education. Most Wellington secondary schools, for example, are single-sex, but that does not mean boys from Wellington College are not the equal of girls from St Mary’s. Our laws against discrimination are founded on the principle of “different but equal”.

    Consequently, although it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender, nationality, race, religion, marital status, and so on, in employment, housing, voting and the like, the law also recognises difference in many ways. Indeed, in our language we always, without exception, give different names to different things because life would become confusing if a rake was called a spade or vice versa.

    Marriage is too important to the stability of our society and the raising of children to risk such a radical change to its traditional definition without sound reason. In my view, no such reason has been advanced.

    Marriage can result in lifelong loving relationships between the spouses. It remains the best and most stable environment in which to raise children. It has stood the test of time and is common to all cultures and nations. Like democracy, it is not perfect, but it is better than all the other models. It would be greatly strengthened if governments invested in the delivery of pre-marriage preparation and post-wedding marriage enrichment programmes by non- government organisations, because marriage underpins a successful society, while the root cause of much poverty and delinquency arises from casual, unstable or broken relationships.

    The Relationships Act created “relationships equality” and nothing more is necessary or desirable. The redefinition of marriage bill should not proceed.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Fletch highlighted this:

    What’s at issue is whether the government will recognize such relationships as marriages—and then force every citizen and business to do so as well. At issue is whether policy will coerce and compel others to recognize and affirm same-sex relationships as marriages.

    It won’t force others to do anything.

    I’m not forced to agree with your idea of religious based marriage – I don’t care if you get married in a church, I’m not compelled to attend, I’m not compelled to approve of your vows.

    And I won’t be compelled to like any other variation on marriage, be it a same sex couple, a same religion couple, or whatever.

    It’s really none of my business how others get married.

    It;s really none of my business whether the choice of any combination of any two people conforms to my preferences or prejudices.

    I’m sure there are some male/female marriages that I would consider to by unsuitable partnerships – if it was any of my business. But it’s not.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    It won’t force others to do anything.

    Yes it will Pete George – what planet are you from?

    The marriage act forces me to recognize any marriage registered in New Zealand under penalty of law

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Fletch (6,497 comments) says:

    Andrei, exactly.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Fletch, do you really want the government of the day to define marriage ?

    What say the government of the day was led by a lesbian feminist with an axe to grind who appointed other homosexuals & feminists to all the key constitutional positions and positions of power in her cabinet ? How do you think she would define marriage?

    Of course that would never happen, would it…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Adele Keyshia (39 comments) says:

    “Yeah Griff if I want to have sex with my dog then it is all ok. After all he is consenting and and adult.”

    I think most people would agree that a dog is not capable of giving informed consent.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    Andrei (1,680) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 10:10 am
    It won’t force others to do anything.

    Yes it will Pete George – what planet are you from?

    The marriage act forces me to recognize any marriage registered in New Zealand under penalty of law

    So fucking what? If you open a B&B you can’t discriminate against homosexuals. You can’t discriminate on religion or race either. Not relevant in any way to this discussion.

    Divorcees can remarry, the state recognises these marriages as well.
    Given your religious orthodoxy I assume you are not in favour of divorcing and remarrying. I believe your church wont even marry divorced people.

    Do you object to recognising those marriages as well?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Fletch (6,497 comments) says:

    There IS a penalty under New Zealand law for saying that two people who are legally married are not married.

    56 Offence to deny or impugn validity of lawful marriage

    (1)Every person commits an offence against this Act, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding 100 pounds, who—

    (a) alleges, expressly or by implication, that any persons lawfully married are not truly and sufficiently married; or

    (b) alleges, expressly or by implication, that the issue of any lawful marriage is illegitimate or born out of true wedlock.

    (2) For the purposes of this section the term alleges means making any verbal statement, or publishing or issuing any printed or written statement, or in any manner authorizing the making of any verbal statement, or in any manner authorizing or being party to the publication or issue of any printed or written statement.

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1955/0092/latest/whole.html#DLM292614

    So, should gay marriage become law, anyone who disagrees with same-sex marriage and says, for example, that two men are “not really married” could be subject to fine under the law. Thus the law would compel those who disagree with same-sex marriage to be silent or to say they assent.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    Again, Fletch, so fucking what? The same goes for divorced people. A devout catholic may not recognise the validity of a divorced couple (just ask Lucia) and yet they are thousands of divorced and remarried couples.

    What an awful, awful situation that must be.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Fletch, stop being silly !

    There is clearly a big difference between the legal definition of marriage and the marriage of belief and custom.

    You seem to be inviting the government to define belief and custom. Do you really want that, or do you want to decide for yourself?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    (just ask Lucia)

    I asked Lucy if she was straight yesterday. She called me a “pervert” and ran away to pray, or something ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    Fletch.

    Given that this law was established in 1955, and refers to a fine in imperial and not decimal currency, I would think that this law should be repealed, if it has not already been.

    You know, like those pesky aparthied laws, or those laws in the US which forbade inter racial marriage at a federal level and were not repealed until the late 60’s.

    Stop grasping at straws.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. kowtow (8,784 comments) says:

    pete george@857.

    and bollox to you too.

    you’ll support anything that appears mildly “progressive”.

    so cool and relevant man!

    when you stand for nothing you’ll fall for anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    You seem to be inviting the government to define belief and custom.

    Another one who has wandered through the looking glass

    Matey, “belief and custom” universally has been that marriage is something that happens between a man and a woman. This is true among the Tartars, the Hmong, the Mongols, the Russians, the Georgians, the Ossetians, the Letts, the Armenians, the Aleutians ……….

    Same sex marriage is a novelty. a new “belief and custom” about to be defined by the New Zealand Government

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    Yepp, kowtow, exactly why we are standing up for gay marriage.
    (BTW, that’s the downside of meaningless platitudes that you so generously use)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Fletch (6,497 comments) says:

    Kea, what Andrei said.

    It’s same sex marriage that is out of the ordinary. A few years ago people would have laughed at the idea (and did – Milton Berle in a wedding dress – see 1:15).

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. kowtow (8,784 comments) says:

    fletch raises an important issue re coercion/compulsion.

    In time it will be a “hate crime” to express a contrary view. It’s already happening in Europe and will happen here.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    Matey, “belief and custom” universally has been that marriage is something that happens between a man and a woman. This is true among the Tartars, the Hmong, the Mongols, the Russians, the Georgians, the Ossetians, the Letts, the Armenians, the Aleutians ……….

    Same sex marriage is a novelty. a new “belief and custom” about to be defined by the New Zealand Government

    Not so for Argentinians, Belgians, Canadians, Danes , Icelanders, Dutch, Norwegians, Portuguese, Spaniards , South Africans and Swedes

    Unfortunately, New Zealand wont be the first here.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    Andrei (1,681) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 8:04 am

    What they got was a legal compromise that sets Same Sex couples apart.

    They are set apart by their very nature – they are non procreative and despite all their powers Governments cannot change this

    No, but scientists can and their ability to do so is closer than you probably think.

    But for now, government isn’t seeking to make homosexuals procreate with one another. Government is seeking to recognize their relationships on an equal legal footing to that of heterosexuals.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Fletch (3,792) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 10:40 am
    Kea, what Andrei said.

    It’s same sex marriage that is out of the ordinary. A few years ago people would have laughed at the idea (and did – Milton Berle in a wedding dress – see 1:15).

    Laugh all you like Fletch. I make homo jokes with the best of them. No one is asking you to change your views. You are asking others to change theirs. It will not work mate.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    Still stuck in 1962, Fletch?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. RRM (10,034 comments) says:

    Keeping slaves and performing type 3 female genital mutilation are “customary” in plenty of places.

    Just because they are customary does not necessarily follow that these are GOOD things to do… so an appeal to “custom” or “tradition” on its own is not really a very good argument for how we should behave as a country now… IMHO ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Fletch (6,497 comments) says:

    Weihana, so you’re saying that if scientists can f*ck with nature and get a man pregnant that that somehow becomes “normal”?
    It still does against nature. As the Pope recently said in a speech –

    “Man calls his nature into question. From now on he is merely spirit and will. The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Same sex marriage is a novelty. a new “belief and custom” about to be defined by the New Zealand Government

    Andrei, if you do not want the government to define these things, then what is this debate about ?

    It is you who is inviting the state to define things that are a construct of belief and custom. You really don’t want them there brother.

    You still can not grasp the concepts of your own Christian faith. If the government banned religion, would you be any less Christian ? Of course not. And homos will not be any less gay either. Focus on your own faith and morality and forget about the sodomite dammed.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    Fletch,

    So, should gay marriage become law, anyone who disagrees with same-sex marriage and says, for example, that two men are “not really married” could be subject to fine under the law. Thus the law would compel those who disagree with same-sex marriage to be silent or to say they assent.

    Have you ever complained about this before? What if a Catholic believed that a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic wasn’t a true marriage? Would you raise the same complaint in that context? Or is freedom of speech only a concern when one wants to voice opposition to homosexuals?

    In any case, that Act would need to be interpreted in light of the Bill of Rights Act and I would assume that any restriction on denying marriage would be limited to statements which denied the legal validity of the marriage as opposed to some meaningless statement such as the marriage wasn’t sanctioned by “God”. Thus you wouldn’t be fined for mere opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Fletch (6,497 comments) says:

    No one is asking you to change your views. You are asking others to change theirs. It will not work mate.

    Actually, society already has a view of what marriage is. It seems to me that it is the pro-gay-marriage crowd who are asking people to change and support their new view.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Fletch (6,497 comments) says:


    Weihana (2,772) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 10:46 am

    Government is seeking to recognize their relationships on an equal legal footing to that of heterosexuals.

    As Copeland has said, the Government already has recognized these relationships, and they do have the same footing under the law as from 2005.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Fletch, can you please tell me specifically what the pro-gay folk are demanding you to change ?

    I am talking about an actually direct change that effects you and can not be avoided.

    Your gonna struggle answering that.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    Actually, society already has a view of what marriage is.

    Correct, and that view also includes gay couples. The change in law is merely going to reflect this.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    Not so for Argentinians, Belgians, Canadians, Danes , Icelanders, Dutch, Norwegians, Portuguese, Spaniards , South Africans and Swedes

    Lol all within the last decade, a mere gnats blink in the scheme of things, not even time to raise a generation of kids to adulthood, not even close to that even.

    But how long have the Dutch got left? Rotterdam’s most attractive building chosen by popular acclaim in 2006. The funny thing about that is that it doesn’t strike me as the epitome of North Western European architecture, it looks like the concept came from somewhere else.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    Fletch (3,793) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 10:53 am

    Weihana, so you’re saying that if scientists can f*ck with nature and get a man pregnant that that somehow becomes “normal”?
    It still does against nature.

    Actually I was just telling you what is on the horizon. In the grand scheme of things whether a man can combine his DNA with another man to create a new human being will be trivial to other modifications to “nature” that people will undertake. The Pope can preach as much as he wants, but profound and powerful new technologies are being developed as we speak and the economic ladder will be climbed by those who take advantage of it.

    Our “nature” is a set of software that was developed by evolution and has hardly been updated for thousands of years. Imagine not updating your operating system or virus scanner for a thousand years. Our nature is the reason so many people are getting fat because our bodies are designed for hunting. But the hunt has been turned into a walk through the shopping mall. Evolution is too slow a process and it is inevitable that humans will define their own nature through technology. In this regard “it goes against nature” is simply not going to be a very good argument upon which to define the ethical boundaries that should apply. People who rely solely on that concept can expect to become the new Amish.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Andrei, that is the most ugly fucking Mosque I have every seen ! What were they thinking.

    Anyway, you have considerable common ground with Islam regarding your views on homosexuals. I can assure you that this debate is well settled in Iran & Saudi Arabia.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Here are some better Mosques.

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

    No homo problem there either.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    Fletch (3,795) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 10:58 am

    Weihana (2,772) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 10:46 am

    Government is seeking to recognize their relationships on an equal legal footing to that of heterosexuals.

    As Copeland has said, the Government already has recognized these relationships, and they do have the same footing under the law as from 2005.

    “…complete and perfect legal equality… with the possible exception…”

    Perhaps you can see the contradiction in the above… Perhaps…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Fletch (6,497 comments) says:

    …of adoption.

    So you want adoption too, is that it?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. kowtow (8,784 comments) says:

    Society has a view on what marriage is. Quite so.

    And instead of allowing a handful of the left wing political elite (aided and abetted by the newly progressive “right” ) dictate major social change,these issues should be put to the electorate in referenda.

    Not the elitist non binding type either.

    These law changes to long standing tradition and custom (and I include the shocking anti smacking law) are serving to alienate politicians from the people they are sworn to represent.

    And they wonder why voters have grown so cynical and disengaged.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    Fletch,

    Yes but that’s not my primary concern. My main concern is giving homosexual relationships a different title as a means to denigrate it in comparison to other relationships. If there was true equality there would be no need for “civil union”. While it may have been a political compromise in 2004 in order to advance the status and rights of homosexuals, now we homo-loving sinful liberals have more political capital in that respect (thank you Glee, Lady Gaga, Will and Grace etc.) and so we’re going all out. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. kiwi in america (2,511 comments) says:

    Copeland makes a good point regardless of how he may have voted on the Civil Unions and related legislation.

    The current gay marriage debate is not about equality but about a handful of gay activists and their socially liberal allies wanting everyone to accept a gay relationship as being the same as marriage. Its a social acceptance issue. Its ironic because the numbers of civil unions performed for gay couples represents about 1% of the number of marriages solemnised each year in NZ. If you look at the reputable non agenda driven surveys of the percentage of the population that say they are gay it varies between 2 and 3%. Of that small group, amongst the lesbian couples, many see marriage as an institution perpetrated by a patriarchy many of them reject so only a small percentage of lesbians in a stable relationship want to be married. For gay men a very small percentage of practising male homosexuals according to the literature are in what could be classified as a stable monogamous relationship and a good number of them can’t be bothered with marriage or the all the debate around it preferring to have a quiet life away from the spotlight.

    My objection to the gay marriage debate is that we are arguing over a tiny number of couples – perhaps barely in 3 figures and that we should upend a centuries old institution for the sake of this tiny but vocal minority with powerful allies.

    Oh and to 3 Coil and Gryff – Mormons renounced polygamy in the late 19th century. Google it.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    KIA,

    The current gay marriage debate is not about equality but about a handful of gay activists and their socially liberal allies wanting everyone to accept a gay relationship as being the same as marriage.

    No… just the government.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    Mormons renounced polygamy in the late 19th century

    And then racism…. in the late 20th century. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Looks like I was right. :)

    Kea (1,861) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 11:03 am
    Fletch, can you please tell me specifically what the pro-gay folk are demanding you to change ?

    I am talking about an actually direct change that effects you and can not be avoided.

    Your gonna struggle answering that.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Fletch (6,497 comments) says:

    Kea, what affects marriage affects the family; what affects family affects society, because family is the building block or main unit of society. So this ultimately affects you and me. You may not see it now, but it does.

    The same can be seen with contraception. Pope Paul VI said what effect it would have, and it has.

    In his 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI predicted that “a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman.” By “disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium,” the Pope wrote, man would eventually view woman as a being who doesn’t deserve care and affection.

    Shockingly, a similar line of thinking was expressed by Alex Williams, a reporter for the New York Times, in a column published on January 13th titled “The End of Courtship.”

    Williams’ essay argues that an over-reliance on technology and years of living in a “hook up” culture have so thoroughly muddled the minds of 20-somethings that they no longer know how to navigate the waters of courtship.

    Williams says that “instead of dinner-and-a-movie…[young adults] rendezvous over phone texts, Facebook posts, instant messages and other ‘non-dates’ that are leaving [them] confused about how to land a boyfriend or girlfriend.” Google and Facebook now accomplish what first dates used to, Williams argues. Unfortunately, many of the relationships young adults experience are mere images of their hook up past, a past they don’t know how to escape.

    For an outlet that has been known to tilt to the left (to say the least), the Times’ decision to publish Williams’ essay is remarkable. It belies everything the media and cultural elites stand for.

    You don’t see the immediate effects now, but it requires that you have some imagination and think about the consequences to future generations.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Warren Murray (314 comments) says:

    Disagree with DF on his comments re Copeland. I may be wrong but it appears arguments for and against the Bill hinge upon equality and discrimination. The family first people argue that the law discriminates in many ways to control the age a person can marry, family connection and polygamy, etc. that doesnt impress me v much. Copeland seeks to highlight that there is no discrimination due to legislation that was passed in tandem with the CivilUnion legislation. Of course the govt of the day couldnt legislate a means for gay people only to marry.

    For me, Copelands contribution raises the question, whats the point? This is an argument centred on the use of word marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Scott Chris (6,177 comments) says:

    Marriage has become a social construction

    Yes, and like all social constructions it is not absolute. What marriage is is defined by the society that practices it, and I suspect that most of us would consider ourselves egalitarian.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Fletch (6,497 comments) says:

    While it may have been a political compromise in 2004 in order to advance the status and rights of homosexuals, now we homo-loving sinful liberals have more political capital in that respect (thank you Glee, Lady Gaga, Will and Grace etc.) and so we’re going all out.

    Well, exactly. I do not think the same-sex marriage debate has anything to do with equality under the law, it’s all to do with wanting society to accept gay sexual proclivities as being normal. It never will be normal though.

    If you boil down all the arguments about marriage and equality and adoption and civil rights it all comes down, essentially, to one question: Is sexual intercourse (coitus) the same as sodomy (or other sexual stimulations). Are they equal in value and merit? I believe not. One is entirely natural and from which new life can result. The other is not, and is based primarily upon the pleasure both can get from the only means available to them – means which devalue and debase the human creature and turn an act which is life giving into a mean imitation or counterfeit of the real thing.

    Same-sex marriage is a means to endorse these couplings in the eyes of society and proclaim them as normal and natural.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. kowtow (8,784 comments) says:

    “Equality” is a social construct. And unlike other social constructs it is being legislated into an absolute and being applied to concepts where it does not belong.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    The reality is marriage may not be a perfect institution but to deny it from someone based on they’re (sic) sexuality is discrimination

    The case for supporting the re-definition of marriage seems to be hinge on removal of ‘discrimination’. It’s a fatally flawed case in my view. Surely those of you who support removal of such discrimination support anyone being able to marry their cat, their mother or both?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    Well, exactly. I do not think the same-sex marriage debate has anything to do with equality under the law, it’s all to do with wanting society to accept gay sexual proclivities as being normal. It never will be normal though.

    Society already accepted homosexuality as normal and nothing evil or something to be ashamed of and needed to be hidden in the closet, regardless whether same sex marriage is allowed or not.

    Your opposition to same-sex marriage has nothing to do with marriage, it is about opposing homosexuality in general as something bad and evil. You don’t want homosexuals to marry because you think homosexuality is icky.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    Fletch,

    Is sexual intercourse (coitus) the same as sodomy (or other sexual stimulations). Are they equal in value and merit?

    Ahhh.. the deep philosophical questions of the Universe.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. RRM (10,034 comments) says:

    It’s interesting that people continue talking about homosexuality as “not normal” when it would be more accurately described as “uncommon”.

    I’m not homophobic, I just think it’s not normal… :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. RRM (10,034 comments) says:

    Ahhh.. the deep philosophical questions of the Universe.

    LOL – you said “DEEP” :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    If you boil down all the arguments about marriage and equality and adoption and civil rights it all comes down, essentially, to one question: Is sexual intercourse (coitus) the same as sodomy (or other sexual stimulations). Are they equal in value and merit?

    Wrong.

    If you “boil down all your the arguments against gay marriage it all comes down, essentially, to one question: Is sexual intercourse (coitus) the same as sodomy (or other sexual stimulations). Are they equal in value and merit?.”

    Aside from the non-sensical question whether one sexual act has more merit or value than another. Value and merit to whom and in what context? And why is this the one and only aspect of marriage that is so important that it defines marriage?

    You are the one who tries to boil the definition of marriage down to a sexual act. No one else does that. Marriage is more than just that.

    The essence of what you and Andrei are try to do, is reverse-engineer an argument against gay marriage.

    Basically, you don’t like gay marriage, what are the things that gays can’t do. Ah yes, have coitus / have children. Ergo marriage is defined by coitus / having children.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    I think its a reaction to the terrible upbringing f undies have especially exposure to the kiddyfid priests within the church.
    The resultant scrabble for interpretation of their homo erotic urges causes the cognitive dissonance around sexual orientation and authority.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Scott (1,821 comments) says:

    I’m against Gay marriage because homosexuality is a sin. Therefore it is an offence against God and hurts us because God knows how he created us. Homosexuality is not normal and we would do well not to encourage people in their sin. So I am against Gay marriage and civil unions.
    However if this goes through then more will follow. Gay adoption is next, then increased persecution of any opposition. For that is the nature of sin. Sin always grows until such time as it is resisted.
    Our children will be subject to a direct propaganda campaign in the schools to accept homosexuality as normal.
    Also lowering the age of consent. Phil Goff tried to get it lowered to 12 I think from memory. Someone will try to get it lowered again if the above measures go through.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Ryan Sproull (7,288 comments) says:

    I’m against Gay marriage because homosexuality is a sin. Therefore it is an offence against God and hurts us because God knows how he created us. Homosexuality is not normal and we would do well not to encourage people in their sin. So I am against Gay marriage and civil unions.

    Scott, if homosexuality is a sin to you, don’t have sex with other men. Eating meat is a sin to me, so I don’t eat meat. The State shouldn’t be imposing either of our beliefs on everyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    From time immemorial the essence of marriage has been copulation and the rearing of any offspring. The institution of marriage is the formalisation of a special relationship that has its roots in the beginning of life itself. It is the only human relationship that properly concerns society, because it concerns procreation.

    The argument that children are not a prerequisite for calling a marriage a marriage is entirely specious. A car may still be a car even if it is a three-wheeler, and a chair is still a chair even if a leg is broken off. To generalisations will always be exceptions. The argument that you don’t need to be married to have children is equally absurd.

    Marriage has never included homosexual acts. Ever. Society accepts homosexual activity on the basis it is confined to consenting adults. Likewise, society denies paedophiles expression of their desire because it concerns children deemed unable to consent. Why though society deems bestiality unlawful baffles me, we don’t ask sheep permission to kill them and they might well prefer a shagging to a slit throat.

    It is perfectly clear that the vagina has developed to receive the penis. Other activity, if performed routinely for preference, indicate a failure of the animal to mature sexually. It is a biological absurdity. One extreme behaviour includes men masturbating over their much beloved cars.

    Homosexuals don’t want to be married, they want to be the same. Very few are in stable relationships. Very few will get married. And who could blame them? To them marriage need be nothing more a comforting word, like “gay” and “hero”.

    Nobody in his right mind wants to see homosexuals persecuted, but homosexual marriage is the normalisation of deviance. It’s a typical loony left response to something that shouldn’t be: redefine the problem and blame bigots if challenged.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Ryan Sproull (7,288 comments) says:

    Why though society deems bestiality unlawful baffles me, we don’t ask sheep permission to kill them and they might well prefer a shagging to a slit throat.

    That seems to me like a better argument for vegetarianism than for bestiality.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    The argument that children are not a prerequisite for calling a marriage a marriage is entirely specious. A car may still be a car even if it is a three-wheeler, and a chair is still a chair even if a leg is broken off. To generalisations will always be exceptions. The argument that you don’t need to be married to have children is equally absurd.

    So, you are saying that a straight married couple without children is like a (broken) three legged chair?
    I’d like to see you say that to such a couple to their faces.

    Nobody in his right mind wants to see homosexuals persecuted, but homosexual marriage is the normalisation of deviance.

    Also, nobody in his right mind wants to see lefthandedness persecuted, but lefthanded marriage is the normalisation of deviance.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @eszett. It’s self-evident there is something wrong in your brain so I don’t expect you to understand the argument. The only true equality would be if we were all hermaphrodites.

    The chair with a broken leg is an analogy, demonstrating the difficulty with definitions, referring to the definition of chairs, which would normally include the words “four legs” as say opposed to stools with three legs. It is given as an example to the morons like you, who interminably say: “What about the couples who can’t/don’t have children?

    Why is it so important to homosexuals that society approves of their sexual activity? Personally I will never accept sticking one’s cock up a strange man’s arse is anything other than revolting and sickening but it makes no difference to me personally, except the huge cost of providing money for HIV/AIDS healthcare.

    But don’t push your luck. Don’t be surprised if a large, tolerant group of men like me fight back over this totally unnecessary redefinition of marriage. While we might lose as Key joins Cameron and all the other populists, don’t imagine marriage will mean much because you will have destroyed its value. It’s already on the wane. And don’t start me on the origins and spread of HIV/AIDS in Western Society: homosexual and bisexual men.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    For starters Dennis, it is not my fault that your analogy of marriages and chairs is a shitty and silly one, not to mention completely wrong.

    And you said nothing about stools, but “a chair is still a chair even if a leg is broken off.”

    The fact remains if you try to define marriage exclusively by the ability to bear children, then you automatically exclude a rather large proportion of straight couples from marriage, no matter how many car or chair analogies you bring.

    Also, it is not about approving or disapproving of sexual activity, it is about allowing same sex couples to marry. I am sure you don’t approve of every straight couples sexual activity before you give them the permission to marry, do you now?

    And besides, who are you do approve or disapprove of any sexual activity between consenting adults? And what about sticking one’s cock up a woman’s arse? Is that as revolting and sickening to you? Well, then don’t do it. But based on the fact that anal sex is quite common amongst straight couples, what conclusions can you draw on straight marriage? None whatsoever.

    Again, what has HIV got to do with gay marriage? How is this relevant?

    All your arguments are nothing but “I don’t like homosexuality”.

    And finally you are a large, tolerant group of men? Right now you one person making silly analogies and ranting away nonsense about homosexuality.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    They are nutts ezett
    Its all homo homophobia dressed in polite language and driven by stupid religion
    And the best thing is society has moved pasts their bigotry.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. wat dabney (3,812 comments) says:

    Scott,

    I’m against Gay marriage because homosexuality is a sin.

    I’m sure you’ll also support laws against the sins of wearing clothes of mixed fibre, working on the Sabbath and eating Pork.

    What’s that? You won’t?

    Well what does that make you?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Scott (1,821 comments) says:

    Ah no wat. Those are Old Testament laws that have been superseded by the new covenant. Homosexuality however is a sin in both the Old Testament and the New.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    You have to understand Scott you are debating people who are like those talking dolls my girls had when they were young – you pull the string and a phrase comes out.

    The doll doesn’t really understand the phrase it is saying and after a while it runs out of new things to say and becomes repititious .

    So you pulled eszett’s string and out came the talking point about the fact that some hetrosexual couples never have children

    And Wat’s string produced the one about not wearing clothes of mixed fibre

    Tedious beyond belief but you have to remember are dealing with mindless creatures uttering programed responses – you need to keep that in mind when engaging them

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    Andrei, funny that you should mention dolls with pulling strings, but every time the topic of gay marriage comes up you are the one who brings up child bearing without exception as if someone had pullled your string.

    No matter how often it has been pointed out to you how false and spurious that argument is.

    And Why should such nonsense go unanswered?

    Tedious as it may be to constantly have to point out the weakness and contradictions of your arguments, it’s important to point them out, even if it’s never going to get through to you.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    You. I take it, eszett came into this world delivered by stork to the local cabbage patch

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Ryan Sproull (7,288 comments) says:

    I think with the obvious level of disrespect for the lives and viewpoints of other people here, there’s unlikely to be any constructive conversation.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Ryan Sproull (7,288 comments) says:

    Right, I’m calling it. This weekend is Opposite Weekend, starting now. Everyone on this thread argue the opposite of their viewpoint NOW.

    I’ll start.

    I respect those in favour of gay marriage, but the most vulnerable parties in this equation are children. There are masculine and feminine ways of being in this world, and it is best for a child to be brought up with a combination of both. I know it’s not always perfect – single-parent families, etc. But the fact that sometimes things fall down, and even despite the fact that some single parents manage magnificently, the fact remains that the ideal situation for children’s upbringing is with a complementary pair of male and female parents.

    When straight couples don’t work out for parenting, that’s just a failure we have to swallow, like benefit abusers. In the long run, the best environment for the most vulnerable members of our society, children, are within a male-female marriage.

    And that’s why straight marriage should be protected and encouraged by the State. Legalising gay marriage would be a move against that.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Scott (1,821 comments) says:

    Ryan, your argument is brilliant. Can you stay in your opposite world for a while? A long while?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    As I said, Andrei, it just doesn’t get through to you that the point you are trying to make is irrelevant.
    It is not relevant to a straight couple whether they can or cannot or do not wish to have children. Why is it relevant to a gay couple?

    You still fail to bring an argument why this is supposed to be the sole decisive factor in determining marriage and why it then doesn’t apply to everyone? You just keep repeating it like the proverbial doll that you mentioned

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Ryan Sproull (5,356) Says: January 25th, 2013 at 7:58 pm

    Wrong. None of us chose what we are. We must play the hand we were each dealt as best we can. I do not seek to diminish in any way the contribution homosexuals make to society, and feel the shame due that we destroyed the lives of great men like Alan Turing and Oscar Wilde.

    I absolutely endorse equal rights, but not the right to define a word and call a homosexual civil union “marriage”. It’s a contradiction not an equivalence, because homosexuals do not qualify for marriage to each other, any more than a private pilot licence (PPL) qualifies anyone to be the captain of my next Airbus flight.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Ryan Sproull (7,288 comments) says:

    Just this weekend, Scott. It’s Opposite Weekend!

    But you don’t agree with me in Opposite Weekend, Scott. You’ve got a reasoned argument in favour of legalised gay marriage. Let’s hear it.

    You too, Eszett.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Ryan Sproull (7,288 comments) says:

    Wrong. None of us chose what we are. We must play the hand we were each dealt as best we can. I do not seek to diminish in any way the contribution homosexuals make to society, and feel the shame due that we destroyed the lives of great men like Alan Turing and Oscar Wilde.

    I absolutely endorse equal rights, but not the right to define a word and call a homosexual civil union “marriage”. It’s a contradiction not an equivalence, because homosexuals do not qualify for marriage to each other, any more than a private pilot licence (PPL) qualifies anyone to be the captain of my next Airbus flight.

    Not quite sure you’re getting into the spirit of Opposite Weekend, Dennis.

    You’re absolutely right that a marriage is by definition a man and a woman, just one of each. Marriage is a cultural institution which varies from society and culture to society and culture, but the one common thread throughout history is the combination of man (men) and woman (women) in producing and raising children. Marriage has always ideally meant some kind of procreative union of a couple or several people. Don’t fuck with the English language. I’m still using it.

    Come at me.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @eszett (1,797) Says: January 25th, 2013 at 8:14 pm

    Because we are talking about the general case, which is that couples mate and have children. That is the essence of marriage. It’s not ESSENTIALLY about being good friends or any of the other things that contribute to a good marriage, it is, for normal healthy young people primarily about SEX.

    Homosexuals stimulate each other and don’t produce children. SO why should society give a damn about their relationship? Protection of property for committed couples is one thing, trying to persuade us it’s the equivalence of marriage is quite another.

    I rather suspect, reading the tripe homosexuals spout, that they have absolutely no idea about the drive to procreate young men have. It’s not just seeking pleasure, it’s a drive stronger than anything imaginable. When I was young I’d rather have gone without food and drink than sex.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Reid (16,634 comments) says:

    The State shouldn’t be imposing either of our beliefs on everyone.

    Is the state a reflection of us as a people? Should it be? Has it ever been?

    I would argue it’s mostly been a reasonable mirror over all of history, with a codicil that the state apparatus is often comprised of a larger proportion of undesirable aggressive, venal, vain and sometimes also or ruthless, cruel people than exists in the general population. This flavours the actions it takes. But apart from that I’d argue the state and all it encompasses is a reasonable representation of our collective consensus in terms of the overall design and deployment of its various tentacles.

    Part of being a mirror is reflecting not only things like holidays both national and traditional holidays but institutions. And marriage is an institution just like justice is and most holidays are. The fact that marriage wells upward from individual behaviour borne from DNA and cultural custom since humans started farming and justice rolls down from the state since for almost as long and holidays are a marriage of the two, doesn’t alter the fact that they are all institutions.

    So should the state support institutions? What else is the state about but the support of institutions? I sometimes wonder if behind this argument is the State-Church separation argument. Of course, like some holidays, marriage up to say thirty years ago was celebrated almost exclusively in churches but these days a rapidly growing number are equally exchanging vows outside that sanctity. Good old Satan, the Slanderer and Deceiver eh? He’s good isn’t he. Sad, isn’t it. To see millenia of tradition thrown aside so casually. But of course some don’t see it like it like that, do you. And that’s the whole point, you see. So you don’t see anything wrong.

    However just because religion has been associated with marriage doesn’t mean religion invented it. Even if it sometimes tries to pretend it did. Religion didn’t even invent Christmas either. It has capitalised on it but it didn’t invent it. But marriage is a human institution before it’s a religious institution, is the point. So the state providing a legal framework for marriage is a human thing, not a religious thing.

    Coincidentally, social engineers who also think in human thing terms but more like in the sense of we as chess pieces are a

    So what’s wrong with the state supporting this human institution as an investment in healthy reproduction of the species?

    What amazes me is that so many people in this country have such zeal to address the dweadful discwimination they don’t even seem to have thought about what it means to their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. People seem not to have weighed that from their comments on this issue not here I mean but on talkback etc etc. I wouldn’t have ever thought a political campaign to cancel Christmas as a paid day-off would ever get much traction, but witnessing the way people have immediately tuned into this campaign to matter-of-factly hand over a human institution without a passing thought, I do now.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    Because we are talking about the general case, which is that couples mate and have children. That is the essence of marriage.

    Says who Dennis? You?

    Women after menopause cannot have children. That is also a general case. Why should society therefore allow them to marry? Why should society give a damn about their relationship then?

    99% of heterosexual encounters are not for reproduction purposes, but purely for stimulation and fun. Is that a bad thing?

    Besides you are wrong about homosexuals. Lesbians can and are having children and raising them. So should they be allowed to marry then, but guys not?

    Your argument just doesn’t stack up. Mostly because allowing gay marriage will have no affect whatsoever on straight marriages.

    I rather suspect, reading the tripe homosexuals spout, that they have absolutely no idea about the drive to procreate young men have. It’s not just seeking pleasure, it’s a drive stronger than anything imaginable. When I was young I’d rather have gone without food and drink than sex.

    Yes, Dennis, I am sure it was only to make babies and had nothing to do with pleasure. Yeah right.

    I suspect the tripe is most spouted by you, Dennis, if you think that straight young men and women crave sex because they want to procreate while gay men and women soley to have fun.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Reid (16,634 comments) says:

    Says who Dennis? You?

    No that’d be civilised history since we started farming and all known science and facts pertaining thereto eszett, that’s what says it. Marriage = Family. At least it will until the braying circus animals have their way and change it.

    For a vacuous argument about some “discwimination” that can’t even be identified but, IF it existed, would affect a mere 2% of the population at most, since not all of them cwy their pwaintive cwys of howwible and anguished distwess.

    So goodbye family marriage, welcome to our bwave new world.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Ryan Sproull (7,288 comments) says:

    Let there be no confusion: we anti-gay-marriage people are in favour of social engineering. We want society to be engineered to encourage straight marriage and everything it stands for.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Ryan Sproull (7,288 comments) says:

    Let it be noted that I, in my campaign against gay marriage, would never replace the letter ‘R” with a ‘W’ and think I’m making any kind of point or being any kind of clever.

    Marriage is about family. Romantic notions of it being about (romantic) love are a relatively recent addition and are by no means essential to the institution.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Reid (16,634 comments) says:

    Let there be no confusion: we anti-gay-marriage people are in favour of social engineering. We want society to be engineered to encourage straight marriage and everything it stands for.

    Ryan you’re not being very progressive. See, we anti-gay marriage people love the fact our fellow humans can join together in a sacred civil union just the same as we can and we love the fact there is no difference at all, at least there won’t be after we have a gay adoption debate which is the only remaining barrier toward true legal equality in every way bar none, isn’t it. So we anti-gay marriage people at least I do anyway, strongly encourage us to have a gay adoption debate. That would remove the last vestige of real actual factual there-it-is so-it-is on the fact of planet New Zealand, wouldn’t it. So let’s do that.

    And that means the only discwimination, is a word. A simple word. So vive le difference. Why BTW, is a word important?

    And what’s wrong with that, Ryan.

    Considering we’re dealing with civilisation since we started farming, vs this non-existent itch which has arisen in the last several years?

    I mean what about this equation doesn’t anyone understand?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Johnboy (17,018 comments) says:

    “we anti-gay marriage people love the fact our fellow humans can join together in a sacred civil union just the same as we can and we love the fact there is no difference at all”

    I love you Reid! Marry me!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    Marriage = Family

    And how would gay marriage change that equation in any way, Reid?
    In what way would your marriage and your family be affected if gays are allowed to marry?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    I love you Reid! Marry me!!!

    Oh dear, ovine hearts have just been broken.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @eszett (1,798) Says: January 25th, 2013 at 8:57 pm

    All I can say is: See what I mean. You have absolutely no idea what I am talking about.

    You had no more choice about being a homosexual than anyone else with a congenital defect, like cleft palate. I don’t laugh at people who are born with Down’s, but nor do I think it’s normal let alone desirable, as some parents insist.

    Incidentally, I was married >40 years ago in France (Paris), where ALL marriages are conducted by the Maire in the Hotel de Ville. Before the marriage, we were both required to have full medical examinations, in London where we were living, including chest x-rays and tests for VD, and the NZ Government was required to sign papers that unconditionally guaranteed my wife residency and eventual citizenship.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Johnboy (17,018 comments) says:

    Anyone called “Horne” needs to be taken with a dose of vaseline on this topic! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Reid (16,634 comments) says:

    Johnboy can I think about it?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Homosexual marriage means marriage is no longer about men and women mating and making the very considerable sacrifices needed to raise children to be independent and useful members of society. It means it’s about, well, wanking and buggery.

    Homosexual marriage is narcissistic humbug.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Johnboy (17,018 comments) says:

    Shall we meet at the same bar Reid?

    Who shall organise the Gypsy violinists? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    Dennis, comparing homosexuality to a birth defect and then claiming I have no idea what I am talking about is pretty rich.
    Kind of shows what mindset you are stuck in.

    Also you don’t seem to have noticed that the requirements for marriage today in New Zealand are quite different to what yours. Things have progressed in the last 40 years, but that seems to have bypassed you.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Johnboy (17,018 comments) says:

    “wanking and buggery”

    Ah Politics and Farming. The two things that have made Aotearoa great!! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Johnboy (9,643) Says: January 25th, 2013 at 9:39 pm
    Anyone called “Horne” needs to be taken with a dose of vaseline on this topic!

    Just as you must wipe his shit off your cock before you stick it in your best friend’s mouth, dear boy. :) :) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Reid (16,634 comments) says:

    Sounds good, Saturday or Sunday? I shall bring the talisman.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Johnboy (17,018 comments) says:

    I always prefer the Lords day to do his work Reid, Shall we say 1:00? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Johnboy (17,018 comments) says:

    The vaseline allows easier removal Dennis. I can see you are au fait with that! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Reid (16,634 comments) says:

    Done. Look forward to catching up.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Johnboy (17,018 comments) says:

    Dennis will bring the vaseline Reid! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    There we have the classic conservative fasanation
    homosexual = men sticking things up each others bums.

    Bum sex is not strictly a homo pastime Many hetro couples do the old pork sword up the poop chute.
    many homos are lady’s and dont find bum sex a prerequisite for sexual pleasure .

    Much prefer the equation homosexual = women , wet bits, carpet burns and that funny little rip you can get at the base of your tongue. Far more normal a fascination for a male than bum sex.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    eszett (1,801) Says: January 25th, 2013 at 9:44 pm
    Dennis, comparing homosexuality to a birth defect and then claiming I have no idea what I am talking about is pretty rich.
    Kind of shows what mindset you are stuck in. Also you don’t seem to have noticed that the requirements for marriage today in New Zealand are quite different to what yours. Things have progressed in the last 40 years, but that seems to have bypassed you.

    You mean to say you don’t know homosexuality is a congenital disorder? A failure to get the squirt of hormones in the uterus at the right time? Goodness. Did you think it was a choice?

    What I’ve noticed over the last 40 years is more and more marriages breaking up because adults only think about themselves and the children suffer. And more and more children are dependent on welfare and never grow up to be any use to anyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Johnboy (17,018 comments) says:

    Reid and I are not suffering from “fasanation” at all Griff’

    Is it some Welsh sex act? Are Sheep involved?

    I could be interested! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    http://www.complex.com/rides/2012/09/25-totally-ridiculous-street-signs/12

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Johnboy (17,018 comments) says:

    It’s fasanating cruising back and watching the karma developing! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Yvette (2,852 comments) says:

    Dennie Horne – Homosexual marriage means marriage is no longer about men and women mating and making the very considerable sacrifices needed to raise children to be independent and useful members of society.

    Second marriages are very commonplace now [about 1 in 4 marriages in New Zealand ends in divorce] with large numbers of men re-marrying in their forties, fifties and sixties.
    http://www.lyfords.co.nz/property_relationships_act.htm

    Re-marrying in their forties, fifties and sixties is probably not about men and women mating and making the very considerable sacrifices needed to raise children to be independent and useful members of society either.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    Red thinks so he is really looking forward to almost not quite fifty sycophantic arse licks

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Johnboy (17,018 comments) says:

    “Re-marrying in their forties, fifties and sixties is probably not about men and women mating and making the very considerable sacrifices needed to raise children to be independent and useful members of society either.”

    True Yvette. It’s all about getting your rocks off!

    What are you doing on Sunday? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Yvette. Marriages later in life. So what? They are of no consequence to society, it’s the unions that produce children that are. Marriages at that age are more about custom and habit, and for women in particular, security.

    I believe marriage should be a commitment and parents should raise their own children. That they don’t is no reason to redefine marriage to include homosexual acts.

    The ideals of marriage needs reinforcing not shrugging off.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Yvette (2,852 comments) says:

    Johnboy – What do rocks and women have in common?
    You skip the flat ones! :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Johnboy (17,018 comments) says:

    There is a beach at Eastbourne Yvette. I can skip you if you are flat!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Yvette (2,852 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne –
    Inconsequential later life marriages will still likely out number gay or same sex marriages.
    But everyone should forget gay marriage
    The real argument should be about gay adoption because that is where this is headed.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    But everyone should forget gay marriage
    The real argument should be about gay adoption because that is where this is headed.

    I agree and I have a problem with it. Consenting adults are one thing, but kids are another.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Yvette (2,852 comments) says:

    Johnboy –Do they still have the Blue Penguin Ice Cream Bar at Eastbourne.
    At my age that would be a better bet – rather than try to skip the light fantastic

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Johnboy (17,018 comments) says:

    Reid is the resident and can give directions!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Yvette (2,277) Says: January 25th, 2013 at 10:31 pm

    Gay marriage on the basis of numbers is no more or less important than compensating killers that the legal system has failed to prosecute properly.

    Homosexual women who have their own children is not an issue for me. I accept it as odd and unfortunate but inevitable. It’s possibly better than a stepfather since the women involved seem to be so hopeless at choosing or keeping men.

    Using surrogates for homosexual men to have children would be an unfortunate experiment for many children.

    Adoption isn’t an issue because there are too few children already for adoption. Happily, perhaps.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Yvette (2,852 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne – Gay marriage on the basis of numbers is no more or less important than compensating killers that the legal system has failed to prosecute properly.
    ___________________
    I can at times be a little thick, but any link to a failed legal system is utterly beyond me. You have spent too long on the Bain thread.

    But as a further consideration on the actual subject, I don’t see it as being too different to civil union, which is now in place, as you will note from all the comments here and any other thread discussing this so far, all references are to same sex marriage, gay marriage, homosexual marriage or marriage equality – they can’t just use the word marriage for it.
    The word ‘marriage’ remains unchanged and the concept it represents.
    The noun ‘marriage’ is going to need an adjective to qualify it as defining anything else.

    “We’re married”
    “Jolly good for you”
    “But we are both gay”
    “Oh, a gay marriage then – why didn’t you say so?”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Yvette (2,279) Says: January 25th, 2013 at 11:06 pm
    “I can at times be a little thick, but any link to a failed legal system is utterly beyond me. You have spent too long on the Bain thread.”

    The connection is that it’s not about numbers but principles. It’s the bit about “on the basis of numbers” that gives you a clue. Of course homosexual marriage is not much different from civil union, that’s the whole point, so why does civil union have to be called “marriage”?

    The concept of the word marriage WILL be changed, fundamentally and irreversibly changed. At present the essence of marriage is mating and child rearing, whatever restrictions and qualifications are placed upon it in the particular case. Marriage has never permitted homosexual acts. Soon it will. How will that help society? It won’t help homosexuals, it won’t make their sexual behaviour any more acceptable to anyone who doesn’t already find it acceptable. It’s a fraudulent attempt to gain approval for behaviour most men find abhorrent, and as such is bound to fail, even in the long term.

    It’s like redefining “taxi” to include trucks. Good luck hailing a taxi on that basis. You might get run over. Especially if it’s during one of your “thick” periods.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. SPC (5,787 comments) says:

    The opening post should have mentioned that civil unions did not provide equality with marriage partnerships – because the former did not confer step-parent status as marriages do.

    The later relationships legislation measures did not focus on that point because they included de facto couples.

    The question is whether those who say civil unions are enough to provide equality are prepared to support extending step-parent status to include civil unions, so that they actually do provide equality?

    This is not an adoption issue – the only children married couples adopt are those not their own. Why should the civil union partner of a parent have to adopt a child to also be a parent of a child. This is not a threat to a birth parent outside of the relationship – many second marriage families have this situation.

    What an irony that those who oppose same sex couples marrying because they cannot breed together (and no, there is no fertility test before hetero couples marry) – because “marriage is about family, will still claim that civil unions offer equality when they do not allow family building including “step-parents” as marriages do.

    As for family and marriages – should we not ask parents of homosexual and lesbian children how they feel about their child’s partner as a step-parent to their grand-children, or their own child as a step-parent to their partners children. Because these unions/relationships/marriages bring two families together, just as heterosexual ones do.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    SPC (2,062) Says: January 26th, 2013 at 5:39 am
    “… civil unions did not provide equality with marriage partnerships – because the former did not confer step-parent status as marriages do. The question is whether those who say civil unions are enough to provide equality are prepared to support extending step-parent status to include civil unions, so that they actually do provide equality?”

    I think any reasonable person who argues against redefining marriage would accept that civil union be the equivalence of marriage whether they believe it or simply seek a compromise.

    I think marriage will be redefined to include homosexual acts, because Man is such a clever animal he thinks he defines Reality by wishful thinking. The State will tell you the Truth and what to Think. It will not alter the fact that mating is a special relationship and rearing children requires considerable sacrifice. Watch the birds work from morning to dusk.

    Personally I am appalled by the number of beautiful and intelligent women in their 40s who have no children and never been married while the benefit breeders pop them out by the baker’s dozen. Men have simply made use of them and robbed them of their reproductive years.

    I would like to see marriage “restored” and valued in society, indeed necessary for child rearing; that is more important than trying to make a few homosexuals feel better about themselves. I understand their difficulties but life is not easy for many people. Income is no saviour either. Once we realise we are here by chance and serve no useful purpose in the Universe it is a lonely place for many people.

    The Left nonsense is not confined to this issue. We don’t blame poverty on having far too many children, we blame racism. We don’t blame lack of achievement on the individual, we blame society.

    There is an element of truth in this: We let the psychopathic bankers take control of our money and we are all doomed … for a few generations anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Yvette (2,852 comments) says:

    @ Dennis Horne –
    Marriages later in life. So what? They are of no consequence to society, it’s the unions that produce children that are. Marriages at that age are more about custom and habit, and for women in particular, security.

    People who have re-married in their forties, fifties or sixty would likely be disappointed as you dismiss their marriages as of no consequence to society, and I imagine they would object on their principles – nothing to do with numbers.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Yvette (2,280) Says: January 26th, 2013 at 8:58 am @ Dennis Horne –
    Marriages later in life. So what? They are of no consequence to society, it’s the unions that produce children that are. Marriages at that age are more about custom and habit, and for women in particular, security. People who have re-married in their forties, fifties or sixty would likely be disappointed as you dismiss their marriages as of no consequence to society, and I imagine they would object on their principles – nothing to do with numbers.

    They can object all they like, but soon their marriages will mean nothing anyway. Just a piece of paper not backed by reality, biology, history, culture, tradition, common sense … Might as well marry a horse, more likely to be between their legs, anyway. Adieu, Madame.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Yvette (2,852 comments) says:

    Marry me and I’ll never look at another horse.
    – [Groucho] Julius Henry Marx Marx

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. eszett (2,432 comments) says:

    They can object all they like, but soon their marriages will mean nothing anyway. Just a piece of paper not backed by reality, biology, history, culture, tradition, common sense … Might as well marry a horse, more likely to be between their legs, anyway. Adieu, Madame

    Clearly, Dennis, your contradictory and confused argumentation is rather based on emotions and ignorance than any kind of rational thought or reason. Your overly focus on a sexual act rather betrays your true reasons behind your opposition to gay marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Ryan Sproull (7,288 comments) says:

    The Left nonsense is not confined to this issue. We don’t blame poverty on having far too many children, we blame racism. We don’t blame lack of achievement on the individual, we blame society.

    Dennis, a society that doesn’t hold individuals accountable for lack of achievement is doomed to be full of unachieving individuals, don’t you think?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Sofia (869 comments) says:

    The British government has introduced a bill legalising same-sex marriage and says lawmakers will get their first vote on it in Parliament next month.
    The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, published yesterday, extends marriage to gay couples but excludes clergy in the Church of England – the country’s official faith – from having to carry out the ceremonies.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/8226193/Same-sex-marriage-bill-for-Britain

    Queen Elizabeth, who is the head of the Church of England, has irked gay rights advocates this week by sending letters described as ‘supportive’ to the conservative Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA), following the group’s efforts to fight the church’s increasingly progressive outlook.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/06/queen-elizabeth-sends-sup_n_226174.html

    On one issue, however, she remains curiously out of step with public opinion. Whereas most of us now welcome and embrace lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, the Queen has never done so.

    While I doubt that Elizabeth II is a raging homophobe, she certainly doesn’t appear to gay-friendly. Not once in her 60-year reign has she publicly acknowledged the existence of the LGBT community – or gay members of her own royal family. The Queen has turned her back on queens.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/01/queen-gay-community-homophobe

    Will the Governor General be representing the Queen in assenting to the ‘marriage equality bill’?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Fletch (6,497 comments) says:

    Ryan, not at all. Just look at the society of achievers we had in the past when individuals were held accountable.
    It gets people up off their asses in an attempt to better themselves.

    I heard someone comment recently on the OWS movement and its ideals who said that once upon a time if a father and son were out walking and they saw Mr Smith drive by in his Rolls, the father would say to his son – ‘son that’s Mr Smith who owns the mercantile; if you work really hard you can be successful like him’. Nowadays what is more likely is the father saying, ‘look there’s Mr Smith the rich bastard; let’s throw a rock at his car’.

    That’s the attitude nowadays.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Ryan Sproull (7,288 comments) says:

    Ryan, not at all. Just look at the society of achievers we had in the past when individuals were held accountable.
    It gets people up off their asses in an attempt to better themselves.

    Yes, that’s what I was saying, sorry. A society where individuals are held accountable will produce achievers. A society where individuals are not held accountable will produce underachievers. Does that sound about right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Fletch (6,497 comments) says:

    Ryan, oh, maybe I read it wrong….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Ryan Sproull (7,288 comments) says:

    Which is great, because…

    1. You have a society where individuals are not held accountable.
    2. Because the society doesn’t hold individuals accountable, the individuals become underachievers.
    3. If the society held individuals accountable, it would produce achieving individuals.
    4. Therefore, we can blame the society, rather than the individuals, for blaming society rather than the individuals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Reid (16,634 comments) says:

    Provided we can blame someone else Ryan, everything’s OK.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Ryan Sproull (7,288 comments) says:

    Well, it’s all a matter of perspective, Reid. The “society” which gets blamed for the actions of the individuals it produces is itself made up of individuals whose actions have also been determined by “society” around them. A population consisting of people who entirely blame “society” for the actions of the individuals within it may well bring about an entire population of people who don’t achieve because they have no sense of personal responsibility.

    That sense of personal responsibility doesn’t have to be grounded in fact (free will being the nonsense it is), but the sense of taking responsibility for your life and possibilities for your future can deterministically bring about what we might consider more sensible and appropriate actions – working hard, respecting others, even a feeling of obligation to help each other out.

    A society that engenders that sense in its members would be in a way responsible as a society for producing members who are in a way responsible for themselves. Of course it’s societal factors that are the deterministic causes behind the criminal or unambitious behaviours of some of the society’s members. But interestingly, believing that criminal or unambitious behaviours are in fact the responsibility of the individual in question can compel or inspire that individual to act otherwise.

    Personal responsibility is a kind of noble lie. It’s not grounded in fact, but it’s effective nonetheless.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Reid (16,634 comments) says:

    Of course it’s societal factors that are the deterministic causes behind the criminal or unambitious behaviours of some of the society’s members.

    Why? Can you please expand on that? My view of that mechanism differs. I believe personal responsibility is the path to ultimate nobility of the human condition. True personal responsibility is voluntary self-sacrifice to and for others borne out of love: hence voluntary. This I believe is the natural human condition which every single one of us is capable of being no matter what happens to us. The extent to which each one of us does or doesn’t behave and think like this and we are all somewhere on that spectrum, is not caused I believe by external forces but rather by our own internal connection to the infinite soul of the universe.

    It’s a shame to me that I understand many people on the left truly take the line that conservative advocacy of personal responsibility is borne out of selfishness. Some lefties seem to conflate for some reason competition with personal responsibility and they seem to conclude therefore it’s all about ruthless win-at-all-costs mentalities and of course the dear old kind hearted generous and loving common or garden lefty wants nothing to do with that. Which is a shame, for those who think like that, because it’s utterly, totally and completely wrong, in every single possible way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Yvette (2,281) Says: January 26th, 2013 at 9:46 am
    Marry me and I’ll never look at another horse. – [Groucho] Julius Henry Marx Marx

    It’s horses for courses, Madame, horses for courses, and I surrender to your charm. Gros bisous …

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    eszett (1,803) Says: January 26th, 2013 at 9:52 am They can object all they like, but soon their marriages will mean nothing anyway. Just a piece of paper not backed by reality, biology, history, culture, tradition, common sense … Might as well marry a horse, more likely to be between their legs, anyway. Adieu, Madame

    Clearly, Dennis, your contradictory and confused argumentation is rather based on emotions and ignorance than any kind of rational thought or reason. Your overly focus on a sexual act rather betrays your true reasons behind your opposition to gay marriage.

    Same tired old tripe. YES, marriage is about SEX. It might be all sorts of other things too but the so-called marriage for love is about SEX. You can argue all you like about it, but that’s why the word “marriage” should be restricted to men and women, who in the general case, copulate. Young men don’t get married for company. Young women may look at wealth or prospects. That be biology.

    Friendship or any other personal relationships are of little concern to society, and that includes homosexual unions. They are what they are and calling them marriage won’t alter that one iota. You can demand all you like that society equates buggery with coition but it isn’t and never will be. It’s just wishful thinking and ignorance.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    Again the same old Homo = bum sex
    Again the failure to see past their own blatant bigotry

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Griff (4,061)Jan26, 2013 at 6:31pm, Again the same old Homo=bum sex. Again the failure to see past their own blatant bigotry.

    Homosexual activity includes buggery but NEVER includes coition. You can argue till the cows come home but all you end up doing is call opponents to your nonsense BIGOTS. It’s a trademark of FAGGOTS worldwide.

    [DPF: If you can;t debate this issue without calling people faggots them you have a problem]

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. RRM (10,034 comments) says:

    It’s a trademark of the FAGGOTS worldwide.

    :lol: Arguments so powerful, they don’t need to be debated!

    Just for you Denis:
    http://pornotube.com/m/1666121/Hot-Gay-Docking

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    As was already pointed out to you prior.
    lady’s that lust together are also homosexual.
    they dont as far as all research I have read have a particular predication to sticking things up bums.
    hence your blanket statement homo = bum sex is pure bigotry.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @DPF. I can debate this without calling people faggots OR bigots; and that is the very point I am making. Every time one expresses an opinion and makes an argument one is dismissed as a BIGOT, and frankly I am tired of it. To me, the word bigot is just as objectionable as faggot. Homosexuals are basically narcissistic: “I want it.” “I WANT IT, you are a bigot.”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Ryan Sproull (7,288 comments) says:

    Why? Can you please expand on that? My view of that mechanism differs. I believe personal responsibility is the path to ultimate nobility of the human condition. True personal responsibility is voluntary self-sacrifice to and for others borne out of love: hence voluntary.

    Sure. Everything voluntary is deterministic, by logical necessity. You choose self-sacrifice because you are motivated by love. If you weren’t motivated by love, you would choose to act otherwise. You didn’t choose to be motivated by love. Therefore, things outside of your control (not your choice) determined your actions.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. SPC (5,787 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (498) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 11:39 pm

    You said that marriage law has never allowed homosexual acts.

    1. It has allowed homosexual men and lesbian women to be married to opposite sex partners (across history).
    2. I don’t think there ever been a national government marriage law that prohibited use of the partners hand on genital areas, oral sex and anal sex on the marriage bed – there have at times been laws against sodomy (including oral sex and anal sex) in the society in which marriage existed. But at those times there may have also been a tolerance for violence towards a spouse including rape and rules that limited spousal testimony.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. SPC (5,787 comments) says:

    Reid (12,871) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 9:16 pm

    You say you want a gay adoption debate.

    First, single people – including gays – can adopt now. These gays can form relationships later.

    Second, if same sex partner options include marriage, then the partner of a homosexual/lesbian parent becomes step-parent automatically.

    Gays in civil unions/de facto relationships who want to become parents of their partners children could simply upgrade their relationship to a marriage – thus the marriage would also be for them a way to build a family.

    Once there are same sex marriages, the gay adoption debate is the last issue.

    Then the incongruity of a single homosexual male/lesbian female being able to adopt, whereas a same sex couple could not, would be an issue.

    But for heterosexual couples, infertility is the drive to adoption – increasing as people delay breeding. This may become true for lesbian partners. Homosexual men of course have the option of breeding by them and shared parenting. That would result in 2 sets of parents as occurs with blended families via second marriages.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    SPC (2,064) Says: January 27th, 2013 at 1:59 am
    Dennis Horne (498) Says: January 25th, 2013 at 11:39 pm

    You said that marriage law has never allowed homosexual acts.

    1. It has allowed homosexual men and lesbian women to be married to opposite sex partners (across history).
    2. I don’t think there ever been a national government marriage law that prohibited use of the partners hand on genital areas, oral sex and anal sex on the marriage bed – there have at times been laws against sodomy (including oral sex and anal sex) in the society in which marriage existed. But at those times there may have also been a tolerance for violence towards a spouse including rape and rules that limited spousal testimony.

    1. No, I didn’t say that marriage law has never allowed homosexual acts. I said marriage, or the institution of marriage, has never included homosexual acts. I phrase it that way (acts) because I KNOW homosexuals have the right to marry – they already marriage equality.

    2. The institution of marriage has never included homosexual activity, whatever else you say doesn’t modify the statement.

    Of course we can redefine any word we choose. We could call a truck a bus if we want to; good luck at the bus stop getting a truck to stop for you.

    Gynaecologists could start using the word “cunt” instead of vagina. Let’s see how popular that is with the ladies. Only a word.

    We could remove the distinction between male and female altogether. Wait a minute, that’s what we’re going to do.

    Homosexuals don’t want to be married, they just want the word. I want it. It’s not fair. Why can’t we call it marriage, it’s just the same thing only a different orientation … Boo hoo hoo.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (500) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 7:14 am
    Ryan Sproull (5,371) Says: January 26th, 2013 at 10:37 pm
    Everything voluntary is deterministic, by logical necessity. You choose self-sacrifice because you are motivated by love. If you weren’t motivated by love, you would choose to act otherwise. You didn’t choose to be motivated by love. Therefore, things outside of your control (not your choice) determined your actions.

    If it’s deterministic it isn’t voluntary. The subject had no choice or alternative, he is merely reacting; voluntary means undertaken of one’s own free will.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Yvette (2,852 comments) says:

    Dennis – We could remove the distinction between male and female altogether. Wait a minute, that’s what we’re going to do.
    _______________________

    Done, Dennis – it’s done. Sorry about your trucks and taxis, you have missed the boat in both cases

    marriage |ˈmarij|
    noun
    1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
    a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex.
    • a relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts : a happy marriage | the children from his first marriage.
    • figurative a combination or mixture of two or more elements : a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel.
    2 (in pinochle and other card games) a combination of a king and queen of the same suit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Yvette. That’s just a definition in one dictionary and it’s not enshrined in law here, yet. In fact it does not define it as a formal union under law, and we all know when using the word in the sense of joining objects or ideas we are not talking about a marriage between men and women.

    In any case, Reality is Reality and does not depend on human observation, unless you subscribe to Bohr’s view of the Universe, (Copenhagen Interpretation), which I don’t.

    Me miss the boat? I think you’re the only all at sea…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote