A change in opinion around the world

March 12th, 2013 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

The House of Representatives will tomorrow vote on the second reading of Louisa Wall’s bill which will allow same sex couples to marry. I’ve blogged previously on the issues involved, and want to focus on the quite remarkable change in opinions on this issue around the world.

Consider that just over 25 years ago, consensual adult sex between two men was illegal. And today Parliaments all around the world are saying that same sex couples should be able to marry.

Micah Cohen of 538 looks at the latest poll in California. In 2003 support for was just 42%. A decade later it is 61%. Just four years ago California voted in favour of banning . A vote today would inevitably see that reversed.

Polling Report has an archive of all US polls on this issue. The CBS poll has support nationally go from 46% to 54% in just one year.

Looking at other countries:

  • Canada voted 175-123 in 2006 to maintain same-sex marriage, A 2012 poll showed 66% support
  • Opinion in the US Gallup poll has gone from 25% in 1996 to 53%
  • Maine voted 53%, Maryland 52% and Washington 54% in 2012 referenda to allow same sex marriage
  • Recent polls in Australia show support for same sex marriage at around 65%
  • The French lower house last month voted to allow same-sex marriage by 329 to 229. The most recent polls show 65% in support.
  • Support in Germany for same sex marriage was 66% in a poll two months ago
  • Support in Ireland for same sex marriage is at 73%
  • The UK House of Commons voted 400 to 175 in favour of same sex marriage. Public support is 55% in favour to 36% against
  • Her Majesty the Queen signalling her support for non-discrimination against gay men and women

So what does this all mean in my view?

  1. Within a few years same sex marriage will be legal in pretty much every English-speaking country and most European countries.
  2. Support for allowing same sex marriage will continue to rise at the incredibly fast rate it has been. This is because there is a huge age differential on this issue. Support amongst those aged under 30 is often well over 3:1 and the only age group opposed (if any) tends to be over 60s
  3. I predict there will not be a single MP who votes for same sex marriage will will regret that vote.
  4. The fact that so many MPs who voted against homosexual law reform in the 1980s and civil unions more recently have later said they regret their vote, suggests that the same will apply with the vote on same sex marriage.

On that last point, it is worth reflecting that just a few weeks ago the former Speaker, Lockwood Smith, said how much he regretted voting against homosexual law reform. In fact I doubt you can find a single MP who voted against it, who still thinks they were right to do so.

We saw the same with Civil Unions. Don Brash has said how much he regrets swapping his vote to vote against civil unions. Even the PM, John Key, has indirectly indicated he regrets voting against civil unions (he says he was following his electorate, not his own views). And I know many others who voted against, and now say they agree they were a good thing. It is ironic that the existence of civil unions is used as a justification by some to vote against same sex marriage, because of course they were against civil unions also.

There is no real question that Louisa Wall’s bill will pass second reading. The only real issue will be by how much, and who voted which way. So my concern is not the bill passing into law. My concern is that a number of MPs may come to sincerely regret how they voted, as so many others before them have on similar issues. We should learn the lessons of history, not repeat them.

Look if an MP genuinely truly believes that same sex marriage will be very bad for New Zealand, then of course they should vote against. I believe MPs should vote with their conscience and with their true beliefs. I disagree with those beliefs and think they are wrong on this issue, but I can respect people who stand by what they believe (within reason).

But some MPs don’t have strong views on the issue. They are focused on economic issues, education, health etc. They don’t see the the issue of same sex marriage as a burning issue for them.

And to some degree I agree – as much as I support same sex marriage – I far from think it is the biggest priority for the Government and Parliament. I regard the economy, education, welfare reform etc as more critical issues.

But regardless it is now up for the second reading vote. This is automatic under standing orders, and MPs now have to vote on it.

If you’re an MP who doesn’t have a strong view on the issue, my advice is simply to think about whether in 10 years time you want to be explaining to the many married same sex couples (and their friends) why you voted to ban them from being able to marry?

As an issue, it may not be as important as the economy, jobs, welfare reform etc but for many people it is a deeply personal issue. Effectively telling 6% of the country that they should remain unable to marry is something that does matter to them. And it does matter to their friends also.

We saw yesterday all eight youth wings advocate in favour of same sex couples being able to marry. That is an extraordinary thing. But it reflects the world they live in, which is the world of the future – as we see around the globe.

Almost all younger New Zealanders have some gay friends. They had gay friends at school, had gay friends at university, work with gay colleagues. They, for the most part, can’t understand why some of their friends should be able to marry, but not all of them. They don’t think that having more of their friends able to marry, will undermine their own future marriages.

As I said, there is a global and frankly irreversible trend in the “Western” world on this issue. Future generations will be just as bemused by the fact that once upon a time same sex couples couldn’t marry, as today’s generation are bemused by the fact that once women couldn’t vote.

I just wonder in the end, why would you want to be on the wrong side of history?

Tags:

259 Responses to “A change in opinion around the world”

  1. Lucia Maria (2,606 comments) says:

    As I said, there is a global and frankly irreversible trend in the “Western” world on this issue. Future generations will be just as bemused by the fact that once upon a time same sex couples couldn’t marry, as today’s generation are bemused by the fact that once women couldn’t vote.

    You’re wrong about this, David.

    Future generations will be in a mess (it’s already bad enough now with so many children being raised without fathers), and they will become more conservative as they try to fix up the massive social experiment of the late 20th century and early 21st.

    This is not like giving women the vote, which was insignificant in the scheme of things given how little power a vote actually has.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Ross Nixon (559 comments) says:

    Wrong is wrong no matter how many people are doing it.
    Right is right no matter how few people are doing it.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. AG (1,830 comments) says:

    As I said, there is a global and frankly irreversible trend in the “Western” world on this issue. Future generations will be … bemused by the fact that once upon a time same sex couples couldn’t marry … .

    Ah! But if same-sex marriage becomes the norm around the “Western” world, there won’t be “future generations” to be bemused by anything!!!

    Now, let’s see how many of the usual suspects try and make this argument for real … .

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. AG (1,830 comments) says:

    Wrong is wrong no matter how many people are doing it.
    Right is right no matter how few people are doing it.

    Of course, on this issue we have a happy confluence of the large majority of people doing/wanting the right thing. Isn’t that great!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. gravedodger (1,567 comments) says:

    Here we go again, Please give us a heads up if compulsion is mooted.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. kowtow (8,730 comments) says:

    “Irreversible trend” my arse.

    The irreversible trend is the decline of the west due to fashion such as ‘progressive” issues.

    Collapsed economies and populations. Mass immigration from incompatible racial and religious groups,and our leaders are obsessed with legitimising sexual deviancy!

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Manolo (14,029 comments) says:

    The progressive train doesn’t stop.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    This must be wrong, Colin Craig said that the momentum of opinion was against the Marriage Equality Bill.

    How could this be? Perhaps you select whose opinion and disregard the rest, like Scott yesterday when he dismissed the opinions of Christians supporting the Bill:

    Christians for marriage equality is a fringe organisation that represents no one. They are apostate Christians who need to start believing their bibles and stop pandering to the world. Such liberal churches are in decline and will soon die out.

    Or you could dismiss the views of younger voters like Cato:

    From one young New Zealander to older New Zealanders: the cult of youth is overrated. It’s getting worse too, as the consistent message is for young people to embrace their passions and sentiments rather than tempering them with reason, scepticism and study. That is more consistent with barbarian cultures than it is with civilised ones.

    Cato would increase the voting age to 25. And Chuck:

    The age for voting like drinking should be 21. DPF in my opinion obviously has a high IQ and can answer quizzes accurately and quickly but he lakes life experience like Helen Clark. Science has backed up what has been obvious to older people for hundreds if not thousands of years.

    What I suspect they mean is they want people who think like them to dominate the voting.

    But that’s all irrelevant. We are experiencing an historic move towards a more tolerant inclusive society, and the growth in support for marriage equality is one sign of this.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 30 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Manolo (14,029 comments) says:

    We are experiencing an historic move towards a more tolerant inclusive society, and the growth in support for marriage equality is one sign of this.

    I can almost see P.G. embracing his many gay Muslim friends while the sweet notes of Kumbaya waft through the air.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “my advice is simply to think about whether in 10 years time you want to be explaining to the many married same sex couples (and their friends) why you voted to ban them from being able to marry?”

    The damage to children bought up in gay relationships will be horrendous as they have to adjust to different partners all the time and no stability in their lives due to hopelessness of their elders not being able to live productive stable long lasting relationships.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Ed Snack (1,925 comments) says:

    Oh dear David, trying to drive up the comment numbers again ? The old “Marriage Equality” propaganda just brings them in.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. TheContrarian (1,091 comments) says:

    “I just wonder in the end, why would you want to be on the wrong side of history?”

    Because my god said so.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. David Farrar (1,900 comments) says:

    Nothing to do with wanting comments. There is a vote in Parliament tomorrow. I love it how people think I should ignore issues when they don’t agree with me on them.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Jacob Cohen (46 comments) says:

    “We should also be asking if the Civil Union Act should be amended to allow Civil Union couples the same rights as married couples.” – Rt Hon Winston Peters

    “The reason that all eight of our MPs voted against the Bill is simply because a referendum will not be held.”
    – Rt Hon Winston Peters
    http://nzfirst.org.nz/search/content/marriage

    There are eight people who will supposedly not vote for the bill, because they – lead by infallible Winstonian logic – want to vote for something else, which doesn’t, and likely never will exist, on this subject.

    But the first comment above does raise a point.
    As much as I have read in the many posts here on this matter, I have never seen it clearly detailed what rights married couples at present have over civil unions, apart from the legitimate use of the word “married” and the right of a married couple to adopt a child, rather than just one partner alone being able to do that.
    Is there anything else?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    This issue is a stark reminder of how modern liberalism has corrupted Western culture. We are already well down the road of moral chaos that is the end game of radical individualism and the eventual tyranny that is the goal of radical egalitarianism.

    Those who think that we will finally see homosexual activism abate post “marriage equality”are tragically mistaken. We are encumbered, (perhaps permanently now) with culturally powerful and influential intellectual and artistic/media class, who are well to the left of centre and who press the culture always in that direction. They attack the existing order with their hostility and they can not ever be placated even by the changes they demand. Appeasement only leads to further attacks.

    The consequence of this are very dire indeed. The West is suffering from a terminal case of civilizational exhaustion whereby hedonism and decadent self-indulgence rules the day. Same sex marriage is a manifestation of that.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 24 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    They’re here, they’re queer, we got used to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    You gotta love “the wrong side of history” argument.

    It actually hightlights how rediculous and absurd legislating same sex “marriage” is becaus there is no sane reason that anybody can articulate as to how society at large is benefited by this psuedo marriage.

    Anyway it is the last gasp of a dying civilization and in the future people wont be wondering what the fuss was about, they will be laughing at the idiotic cultures who committed suicide and handed their nations over to the followers of the prophet without a shot being fired

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    Ed, I’m sure DPF’s aim is a lot higher than a few page views and yet another futile thread unravelling.

    But yeah, it’s a shame DPF has to confuse the issue with so many facts and proof of a major swing in opinion.

    I know some people are very much against this Bill, fair enough, that’s their view. But in a few years time most people will wonder what the all fuss was about when they see that nothing much actually changed apart from a tweak to give a few more people the choice of marriage.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. AG (1,830 comments) says:

    Because my god said so.

    Well, you are listening to the wrong message. If you read this, you’ll see your god actually likes gay people and wants them to be married. So your problem has been fixed!

    http://now.msn.com/queen-james-bible-offers-gay-friendly-scripture

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Ryan Sproull (7,259 comments) says:

    Oh dear David, trying to drive up the comment numbers again ? The old “Marriage Equality” propaganda just brings them in.

    Ed, still waiting for your reply to this.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    Here’s a few examples of the moral abyss where all this is heading:

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/05/ivy-league-campus-reportedly-hosts-workshop-encouraging-compassion-understanding-for-bestiality-incest/

    https://coffeeandsleeplessnights.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/chicago-public-schools-will-start-sex-education-in-kindergarten/

    http://www.vexnews.com/2013/03/big-love-greensparty-polyamorists-push-for-equality-in-marriage-act/

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    …….nothing much actually changed apart from a tweak to give a few more people the choice of marriage.

    Same sex couples cannot be married Pete George, despite idiots is Parliament passing a law to say they can. it is just not possible for two men or two women to marry each other.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Ryan Sproull (7,259 comments) says:

    Same sex couples cannot be married Pete George, despite idiots is Parliament passing a law to say they can. it is just not possible for two men or two women to marry each other.

    Then you’ve got nothing to worry about, Andrei!

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Redbaiter (9,503 comments) says:

    The so called opinions you speak of are the thoughts of mush brained sheep herded to a certain point of view by a clever but corrupt and dishonest propaganda strategy.

    These mindless fools only think in terms of whether a concept is “cool” or “not cool”.

    Mussolini was cool once. I wonder if those who tried to warn of his real intent were told at the time they were “on the wrong side of history”.

    What a fatuous and insulting propaganda term it is. Along with “marriage equality”.

    The Select Committee too has been a crooked and unjust process.

    This whole procedure is an example of Progressive government over reach where a group of temporary politicians are attacking one of our historical and traditional concepts and using the power of corrupt big government to force millions of NZers to accept a change they are deeply opposed to.

    Wrong side of history??

    Pffft, I’d rather be there than on the wrong side of democracy.

    This is not an act people are going to “get over”.

    Marriage is different.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Adele Keys (39 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria: ” This is not like giving women the vote, which was insignificant in the scheme of things given how little power a vote actually has.”

    WTF?

    A single vote maybe not be giving the women the right to vote literally doubled the electorate!

    What an absurd argument

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    Andrei, one day in the not too distant future it’s quite likely same sex couples will be getting married in your church, and if not there in most other churches. There was a time not that long ago when I wouldn’t have been allowed to marry in the church I was married in.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Ryan Sproull (7,259 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria: ” This is not like giving women the vote, which was insignificant in the scheme of things given how little power a vote actually has.”

    WTF?

    A single vote maybe not be giving the women the right to vote literally doubled the electorate!

    What an absurd argument

    It was a typo. Lucia’s talking about when a woman was given the vote, not women in general. Her name was Gertrude Pickelsberg, and while giving her the vote was hotly debated at the time, in the end – as Lucia points out – it didn’t really matter. Gertrude was quite insane, poor soul.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    one day in the not too distant future it’s quite likely same sex couples will be getting married in your church

    Never happen Pete George, a few years ago a Priest was fooled into marrying two men, thinking one was a woman and when this came to light the priest was defrocked and the Bishop had the chapel where it occurred burnt to the ground.

    New land was bought and a new church raised on it to replace the profaned one

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. TheContrarian (1,091 comments) says:

    @AG

    I was being tongue in cheek – I don’t believe in God/Gods.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. BlairM (2,363 comments) says:

    The pro side want to demagogue this as a debate on whether consenting adults can formalise their relationships. DPF even says “my advice is simply to think about whether in 10 years time you want to be explaining to the many married same sex couples (and their friends) why you voted to ban them from being able to marry?” That is utter bullshit. Nobody is voting on banning anyone from “being able to marry”. MPs are voting on whether the government should issue certificates to same sex couples with the word “marriage” on it. It has no effect on what consenting adults can do with their lives.

    Whether this legislation passes or not does not affect me, or my view of marriage, or damage marriage as a social institution in any way. But I hate lying and I hate liars, and from the word go the pro-redefinition lobby have lied and demagogued and lied again, then thrown in accusations of bigotry for good measure. So fuck you all. No I do not support your vain quest to have government rewrite the etymological landscape. Marriage consists of one man and one woman. If you want official government validation for your lifestyle, then maybe you’re just not quite gay enough. Your insecurity is not my problem, and it shouldn’t be the Department of Internal Affairs’ problem either.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Ryan Sproull (7,259 comments) says:

    Never happen Pete George, a few years ago a Priest was fooled into marrying two men, thinking one was a woman and when this came to light the priest was defrocked and the Bishop had the chapel where it occurred burnt to the ground.

    New land was bought and a new church raised on it to replace the profaned one

    That seems… excessive. Was there no better use for the money spent on the new church?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    Wow Andrei, where was that up north somewhere? I didn’t hear anything about it down here in the south.

    Ryan, perhaps they were cost efficient and burnt a few witches at the same time.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    I wonder if the rising number of fatheads is linked to increasing obesity in the West…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    there is no sane reason that anybody can articulate as to how society at large is benefited by this psuedo marriage.

    Ah, the old ‘for the good of society’ argument.

    The 20th century totalitarian nightmares were fundamentally the result of this pretext.

    Human and civil rights can be discarded simply by asserting that you are acting ‘for the good of society.’

    If you don’t like gay marriage then marry someone of the opposite sex.

    There. Next question.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. gump (1,660 comments) says:

    @Andrei

    Before the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, it was a mortal sin for a Catholic to enter a Protestant Church. It was a serious business back then but seems almost unfathomable today.

    It seems likely that your Church’s current opposition to same-sex marriages will one day be regarded as a similar historical anomaly.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Griff (8,153 comments) says:

    Goody.
    All gay couples should attempt a fake male female marriage on at least one church.
    Destroy the papist by using their homophobic stupidity against them.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. flipper (4,194 comments) says:

    Perhaps, David, you will one day explain why the sexual proclivities of homosexuals warrant so much attention. Will you?

    Perhaps you could also invite Mau, for example, to tell everyone how she will explain her “sexuality” to her children. No ?
    Ditto how she felt able, her new found “sexuality” notwithstanding, to voluntarily copulate with her former husband and conceive children.

    Frankly, how an individual conducts their sexual life in private, providing it is not illegal, is their businesss. But please do not attempt to deep throat me on so called “gay” crap.

    Sane, non activist, same sex couples (my brother in law is an example), see no need for this “marriage” rubbish.

    Clearly the law change will occur. But what wll that say about the future of humanity? One wonders.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. JMS (337 comments) says:

    I would rather the government got out of the business of marriage altogether,
    otherwise I don’t really care much about this issue.
    But as for gays and lesbians threatening Western Civilization, you’re all barking up the wrong tree!
    Anyone been to Europe recently?
    The stupendous Muslim birth rate is the real threat to our civilization.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. BeaB (2,142 comments) says:

    What a lot of time and hot air is being wasted on this non-issue. The bill will pass and we’ll see lots of people congratulating themselves on their modern and liberal views. And silly pictures of same sex couples all dressed up in their wedding finery.

    I am happily married and I am happy for any other couple to be married if they so wish. It doesn’t affect me and is really none of my business, even if civilisation crumbles round me as a result.

    Decades ago, I chose a registry office as I have no belief in any kind of supernatural role in my life. To me the logical situation is that of France – a civil ceremony by the state and then religious mumbo jumbo if that’s what appeals to you.

    Of course in NZ neither is necessary any longer as a few years co-habitation provides all the legal protection marriage was designed for.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. BlairM (2,363 comments) says:

    Gump – don’t get Andrei started on Vatican II, he probably thinks it was a bad idea and should never have happend!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Jacob Cohen (46 comments) says:

    St Andrew’s on The Terrace Presbyterian Church supports Marriage Equality …
St Andrew’s dissents from the Assembly’s decision to oppose marriage equality. Marriage equality is not an issue on which Presbyterians agree. 
– http://www.standrews.org.nz//news/#newsitem-5

    It is proposed the act will state “a marriage celebrant from a religious body or approved organisation is not required to solemnise a marriage where it would be contrary to a genuine religious beliefs of the religious body or approved organisation.”

    As can be seen, the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand does not agree within itself on same sex marriage, so the proposed wording of the act still does not accurately clarify the situation.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. peterwn (3,298 comments) says:

    “Consider that just over 25 years ago, consensual adult sex between two men was illegal. ” That was only part of the story. The real ‘kicker’ was not the law against sodomy as such, but the 19th century law that enabled successful prosecutions for behaviour that could be indicative of a gay male relationship Nowadays any proposed criminal legislation that presumed that a slight whiff of smoke was ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ would be shot down in flames. If this 19th century legislation were in force today, my guess is the Appeal Court or Supreme Court would strike or have struck a lethal blow to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    Spot on DPF. Give it 3 years, no one will even remember what all the fuss was about.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    This is not about marriage, homosexuals won’t get married. It’s about equal rights, as defined by homosexuals and faddists, a new normality.

    We will be subjected to a few celebrity “weddings”, with the husband kissing his husband. Mostly, homosexual life will otherwise continue as before: fast, furious and filthy.

    Women will find it harder and harder to get men to make a commitment, marry them.

    The narcissists will have won, but the prize will have disappeared.

    Normality will remain, still out of reach.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. radvad (772 comments) says:

    This is a natural progression/regression of allowing politicians to define marriage in the first place. Now that they have started interfering/engineering the changes will gather pace, just watch this space.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Millerman (3 comments) says:

    I do feel genuinely sorry for those clinging to positions that simply deny fellow human being basic civils rights, but lets address some of the points raise.

    “There’ll be no future generation”?

    Is this one a joke?

    What’s going to happen, compulsory gay marriage, the gay agenda will turn the majority of the population who are heterosexual gay? Marriage equality will have zero affect on the what 80-90% of the population who aren’t gay to have children.

    “Children brought up by a same sex parent will be screwed up their parent(s) having multiple partners and not being brought up in a stable relationship”

    What exactly do you think happens now, anyone can wander in say ‘I’d like to adopt a child’ and walk out with one? There’s a process whereby anyone be they gay or straight need to evidence they’re part of a loving and stable relationship and one that’s suitable for children, that’s not going to change. But you believe what? That when gay people evidence they are in long terms stable relationships, they’re lying? pathologically incapable of maintain the relationship?

    Anyone who leads and unstable and hedonistic lifestyle won’t get to adopt children, that’s the case now with straight people.

    What children need is not necessarily a ‘mother and a father’, but a loving and stable environment. This argument suggests that violent, drunken and abusive biological or heterosexual parents would be preferable to loving and caring gays ones? There is no evidence that the children of gay parent suffer any psychological problems, but there’s scores of evidence that children are damaged by being brought up in non caring, non loving environment, regardless of who and how many people are involved.

    “The West is suffering from a terminal case of civilizational exhaustion whereby hedonism and decadent self-indulgence rules the day.”

    And the ability of people to choose to make a legal, public, and lifelong commitment to love and care for the same person is an example of hedonism and self indulgence? I’m not sure you’ve really thought that one through.

    “there is no sane reason that anybody can articulate as to how society at large is benefited by this psuedo marriage.”

    Er, the exact same argument that’s made for hetrosexual marriage, that it provides a stable basis for people lives who choose to commitment to another person, and provides legal rights for people who’ve entered into a long term relationship.

    Here’s a few thoughts people.

    No one’s going to make you gay, make you marry someone of the same sex, they’re not even going to make you like the idea of other people doing it.

    Just as with straight people who have multiple partners, if they don’t want to get married they won’t. Just as with straight people, if they don’t believe in marriage, they won’t get married

    This is provide civil rights and choice to people to whom it’s currently excluded. That’s it, and anything else is irrational scaremongering.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. mandk (1,015 comments) says:

    David Farrar spruiking gay marriage again.
    Methinks he dost protest too much.

    [DPF: 20 demerits. If I was gay or bisexual I’d be open about it. I think it it those who get threatened by gay marriage that are often fighting inner demons]

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. MT_Tinman (3,249 comments) says:

    As Gravedodger noted above, only compulsion will concern me, although at my age even that is probably not a starter.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    Destroy the papist by using their homophobic stupidity against them.

    It wasn’t a “papist” church, Griff. It was a Russian Orthodox Church in Russia. Sorry ’bout that

    And in case you hadn’t noticed the Russian Federation is passing laws to contain the Homosexual rot which is undermining the West.

    Gay “rights” will in the end be one heck of an own goal for the homosexual movement

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Millerman (3 comments) says:

    “Women will find it harder and harder to get men to make a commitment, marry them.”

    Go on, do explain. Are the gays going to magically turn me?

    No, you believe by treating it as normal it legitimizes it, and therefore more people will CHOOSE to be gay? You do realise there’s no a single shread of evidence to back this up don’t you?

    “This is a natural progression/regression of allowing politicians to define marriage in the first place. Now that they have started interfering/engineering the changes will gather pace, just watch this space.”

    Yeah, I tried for the ‘traditional’ notion of marriage, but my wife didn’t seem terrible keen on the idea of being treated as a piece of my property, her dad wasn’t overly keen on the whole dowry thing either, and she found the idea that I could force her to have sex with me without her consent repugnant. Sadly, she also seemed reasonably keen on the idea of law treating her equally when it comes to property. So I’m stuck with this awful ‘redefined marriage’.

    If only politicians hadn’t been allowed to ‘define marriage in the first place’. We’re all going to hell in a hand basket I say!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    BeaB,

    What a lot of time and hot air is being wasted on this non-issue.

    Apparently it is the end of Western civilisation, the end of humanity even.

    No small thing.

    Dennis,

    Women will find it harder and harder to get men to make a commitment, marry them.

    I thought that was just lovely.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    CORNELL: Massachusetts public schools impose new rules for transgender students
    Sexual difference no longer relevant—even to bathroom choice

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/10/cornell-massachusetts-public-schools-impose-new-ru/

    Homosexual marriage and adoption will not be the end of the never ending demands of this deviant crowd or their libertarian bedfellows as you can see from the above link. Next will be calls for surrogacy where eggs are for sale and wombs are for rent. Welcome to Brave New World.

    The concept of MPs having a conscience vote is an oxymoron. The average used car salesman would have more of a conscience than the average MP.

    If DPF really and others really believed the majority supported this piece of legislation they would not be so strongly opposed to a binding referendum. If they won they would be aware how much it would benefit their cause but they know people cannot be bullied with name like homophobe in the privacy of a voting booth.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. eszett (2,426 comments) says:

    And in case you hadn’t noticed the Russian Federation is passing laws to contain the Homosexual rot which is undermining the West.

    Gay “rights” will in the end be one heck of an own goal for the homosexual movement

    Great to see Andrei’s famous “christian live and let live” philosophy.

    I am sure you would be much happier in your beloved russia, andrei. The freedom to beat up dirty fags to your hearts content.

    Not only are you on the wrong side of history, but on the dark side of humanity.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Fletch (6,486 comments) says:

    Effectively telling 6% of the country that they should remain unable to marry is something that does matter to them.

    Woah, now. Where’d you get this 6% number from? That’s a very high estimate. The reality is more like 1% – 3% and probably nearing the lesser if we’re talking about people who are exclusively homosexual. The latest census data we have (on the question of homosexual cohabitation) as reported on Stuff in 2007 says –

    The new figures also suggest that same-sex couples are less likely to nest than their heterosexual counterparts, with homosexual couples making up just under 1% of all couples in New Zealand in 2006.

    The numbers of gay men living together rose slightly from the 2001 Census to reach 0.3% in 2006, while the number of lesbian women cohabiting made up 0.4% of all couples living together.

    Numerically this means that there were 3516 female couples and 2655 male couples living together in 2006, compared with 867,696 couples of the opposite sex.

    Although the numbers only take into account same-sex couples who live together, they are the most accurate statistics indicating the number of gay people in New Zealand.

    And we should change the law to accommodate such a small percentage? I bet there are more people wanting polyandrous marriages. Why don’t we accommodate them first?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. TheContrarian (1,091 comments) says:

    @eszett

    Yeah – I was amused when Andrei claimed s/he had a “christian live and let live” philosophy.

    It is, of course, utter bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    If you don’t like gay marriage then marry someone of the opposite sex.

    That’s a bit like saying if we changed the definition of assault to include looking at someone a bit oddly, this shouldn’t worry you because you never do that.

    The proponents of the gay marriage seem focus on what marriage will allow, while my primary concern is what marriage stands for. And sadly what it stands for is less and less about promotion of biological families as the ideal societal construct

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    “Wrong side of history…” That’s a bit Farrar-fetched.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. TheContrarian (1,091 comments) says:

    “And sadly what it stands for is less and less about promotion of biological families as the ideal societal construct”

    Which means what? What’s a biological family? One that can reproduce?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Lucia Maria (2,606 comments) says:

    Ryan,

    Actually, it wasn’t a typo, but thanks for the extra information on Gertrude Pickelsberg, whom I can’t find on Google, but that doesn’t necessarily mean anything…

    Adele Keys,

    And doubling the size of the electorate has done what? Not much.

    Now, a voter-veto on conscience legislation, that would be something.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Ryan Sproull (7,259 comments) says:

    Ryan,

    Actually, it wasn’t a typo, but thanks for the extra information on Gertrude Pickelsberg, whom I can’t find on Google, but that doesn’t necessarily mean anything…

    Well, I just made her up, but give me 15 minutes on Wikipedia and Google again ; )

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Ian Wishart (69 comments) says:

    http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=3355

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Fletch (6,486 comments) says:

    DPF also doesn’t mention that support is dropping for same-sex marriage in New Zealand. As I commented before, various polls (although admittedly they are different polls) show the percentage in favour dropping from 59.3% down to 47% in the last poll.

    The Herald Digipoll question published Dec 27, 2012, was – “Which of these statements best fits your views about marriage law: 1) It should reamin only between a man and a woman (37.5%), 2) It should be changed to allow it between same-sex couples (59.3%)

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10856176

    The Herald on Sunday Research Poll question was:

    Do you think that same-sex civil unions should be extended to marriage?
    • Yes 53.9%
    • No 38.1%
    • Unsure 8%

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10857496

    So, together with today’s Curia poll, the percentage of those who think same-sex couples should be able to wed has fallen from 59.3% to 53.9% to today’s percentage of 47%.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    The child molesters of religious tosh are out in force again with the blatant cheek to decry Gays from getting married while their own sordid perversions are being uncovered daily.

    There is no God so thats done and dusted.

    Gays wanting their human right to equality before the law with the rest of us, recognised and protected by Government (which is its legitimate role) are a totally seperate issue from the force mongers who want to force the rest of us to have to accomadte them in churchs and other places and in our personal lives against our will.

    That the Godders can’t, or most likely choose not recognise this crucial difference is a telling admission that their real agenda is pure fear and hatred for that which is simply a bit different. And thats sad and pathetic.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Adele Keys (39 comments) says:

    Lucia, the female demographic of the electorate has undoubtably changed the face of New Zealand governments (in my opinion obviously for the better as it is a better representation of NZ as a whole). Female voters often vote very different to their male counter parts. See http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/01/the_gender_gap_in_politics_why_do_women_vote_differently_than_men_.html for an interesting article on this

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Adele Keys (39 comments) says:

    Lucia: And doubling the size of the electorate has done what? Not much.

    My response would be that it has diversified the NZ electorate, better represented New Zealand’s people and celebrated true democracy

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. eszett (2,426 comments) says:

    And we should change the law to accommodate such a small percentage? I bet there are more people wanting polyandrous marriages. Why don’t we accommodate them first?

    Notice how the percentage of homosexuals get smaller and smaller as the the discussion progresses and yet the dire consequences of letting them marry gets larger and larger.

    If you wish to have polyandrous marriage, Fletch, I’d suggest you petition for it. Given that there is such a large demand for it, far greater than for gay marriage as you claim, it shouldn’t be a problem to get some traction.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. David Garrett (7,523 comments) says:

    Well, one good thing is after the damned thing passes, as now seems inevitable, we need hear no more about it.

    As to the “wrong side of history” point, you are somewhat premature DPF, since the “history” of the wisdom of this move is yet to be written.

    In 1960, one could have made a good argument that the inhabitants of market economies would eventually be “on the wrong side of history” because half a billion people in China and more than half of Europe were following a glorious path to a socialist utopia. Fast forward 50 years, and things look very different.

    Anyone who believes this will NOT lead to calls for polygamous marriage, marriage with minors – especially if it is “culturally appropropriate” for new Muslim citizens of our fair land – and even marriage across species, should find old clips of Clarkie and her mates assuring us all when civil unions passed that homosexuals would never want to marry.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Jack5 (5,145 comments) says:

    The likely institutionalisation of families with two homosexual parents would be a huge step for Western society. Far greater than that of societies such as Polynesia and the north-west American Indians with their status for a “third gender” such as Samoa’s fa’afafine – males raised as girls. The male-female parent family remains dominant in these societies, and our Islander communities in NZ seem opposed to homosexual marriages.

    DPF posted at the head of this thread:

    …future generations will be just as bemused by the fact that once upon a time same sex couples couldn’t marry…

    1. Not necessarily, DPF. Attitudes towards sexuality swing through history, and most of the time are hostile to homosexuality. The Ancient Greeks were big on pederasty, but homosexuality became outlawed later in the West. Within the English speaking world, consider the swings from the Roundheads’ puritanism to the shag-happy days of the Restoration, then the swing to the puritanism (often hypocritical) of Victorian times.

    2. And definitely not if the Islamic fundamentalists or the Born Again Christians gain the upper hand, DPF.

    3. With heterosexual marriage losing its hold as an institution, perhaps gay marriage will be the only form of marriage to survive, and thus a new barrier separating gays from the community at large.

    The change of opinion towards acceptance of the notion of homosexual “marriage” IMHO comes from two things. The first is the decline in respect or standing or perception of Western society’s traditional institution of family-oriented marriage. The second is the activism and political energy of homosexuals. Gays tend to be clever buggers.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. kiwi in america (2,508 comments) says:

    Whilst the trend is undoubtedly towards acceptance of gay marriage, opinion polls in the US have consistently overrated the support for gay marriage. In every state where it has been put to the ballot, the percentage who vote in favour of traditional marriage consistently outperforms the percentage who say they support the status quo by an average of 10%. It is trendy to tell a pollster that you support gay marriage but in the privacy of the polling booth when voters get a real say, its another matter. Maine, Vermont, Massechussets and Washington are very liberal states and even there the most recent initiatives barely passed. Prop 8 failed in liberal California and by a reasonable margin although I’m sure if a vote were held today the vote would be closer. If we applied this same referendum versus poll adjustment to the New Zealand situation I think you’d find if the Wall Bill was put to a referendum it would be exceedingly close. Its not often I agree with NZ First and Winston Peters but on this issue I support their policy of making the result of the Parliamentary vote subject to a referendum.

    Gay marriage has become a cause celebe of the urban liberal chattering classes across the ideological divide rather than amongst the majority of the gay community. Almost every gay I know wonders what the fuss is about – they either would far prefer to cohabit as they choose without any public show of commitment and thus fuss and most know that their rights to share in assets and pensions etc have been gradually enshrined in various changes of legislation even before Civil Unions were voted in. You only have to look at the tiny numbers of gay civil unions solemnised in NZ last year versus traditional marriages (320 vs 22,943 http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/marriages-civil-unions-and-divorces/civil-unions-marriages-provisional.aspx or a mere 1.39%). Lets assume that only a percentage of those involved with same sex civil unions want to go to the next stage of gay marriage. Here we have the centuries old laws, traditions and mores of society being turned upside down for 1% of the population.

    I agree with BlairM. People are wanting to assuage guilt over not being pro gay enough to permit the government to issue marriage licenses for gay couples when this is not an issue for the government to be concerned about. There is a handful of aggressive gay activists who want gay marriage so as to make society accept their sexual choices. Whilst society’s laws should not restrict that choice or discriminate against those who make that choice, likewise it should not try and tilt the playing field the other way. The loud support from social liberals and the widespread condemnation of supporters of traditional marriage (Whaleoil being an aggressive example of this – at least David you accept the debate and don’t denigrate traditionalists) is a modern form of affirmative action, something akin to why Obama did better than expected amongst white voters as they sought to expunge the decades of racism against blacks through the act of electing a black President.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    “I just wonder in the end, why would you want to be on the wrong side of history?”

    Sigh. Of all the reasons to be for or against same-sex marriage, this is undoubtedly the worst. Anybody who changes their mind about the issue because they fear posterity is a hypocrite – remembering that hypocrisy, properly defined, truly means to moralise in favour of standards and virtues one does not really believe in.

    How hard is it to imagine some idiot student politician in the 1960s saying:

    “Marxism is inevitable. All the polls show that young people are becoming more radical, that the Soviets are on the rise and that people’s revolutions are erupting across the world. Marxism is inevitable. They will bury us. I just wonder in the end, why would you want to be on the wrong side of history?”

    Use your own judgment in coming to the conclusion about what is right. Then do what you think is right and vote for what you think is right. Everything else is pusillanimity.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Fletch (6,486 comments) says:

    The Scorned, since when is gay marriage a “human right”?
    Short answer: it isn’t. Just because you feel like doing something doesn’t make it a “right”. In fact the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled last year that same-sex marriage is NOT a human right.

    Same-sex marriages are not a human right, European judges have ruled.

    Their decision shreds the claim by ministers that gay marriage is a universal human right and that same-sex couples have a right to marry because their mutual commitment is just as strong as that of husbands and wives.

    The ruling was made by judges of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg following a case involving a lesbian couple in a civil partnership who complained the French courts would not allow them to adopt a child as a couple. 

    They declared: ‘The European Convention on Human Rights does not require member states’ governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage.’

    So that’s that idea of gay marriage being a “human right” done and dusted.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Ryan Sproull (7,259 comments) says:

    Anyone who believes this will NOT lead to calls for polygamous marriage, marriage with minors – especially if it is “culturally appropropriate” for new Muslim citizens of our fair land – and even marriage across species, should find old clips of Clarkie and her mates assuring us all when civil unions passed that homosexuals would never want to marry.

    That’s completely fallacious, David.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Fletch (6,486 comments) says:

    Well, one good thing is after the damned thing passes, as now seems inevitable, we need hear no more about it.

    Oh, I’m sure we’ll be hearing about it. Whenever a teacher is fired for not teaching that gay marriage is equal to traditional marriage; whenever a pastor is arrested for “hate speech” for preaching against it; whenever a marriage celebrant refuses to marry on grounds of his conscience. All that and more. Make no mistake; it’s going to happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Ian Wishart (69 comments) says:

    Britain and the West were very nearly on the wrong side of history in WW2…should that have stopped them fighting the inexorable march of the Fuhrer and his ideas?

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

    Well, one good thing is after the damned thing passes, as now seems inevitable, we need hear no more about it.

    Wanna bet David Garrett?

    Because men don’t have wombs and because children are part of the family thing one thing coming down the Pike will be payment for egg donation and surrogacy i.e rent-a-wombs shudder

    And eventually for the taxpayer to front up the cost for surrogacy – we are already paying for fertility treatment for lesbians.

    The abominations will just continue multiply

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. ChardonnayGuy (1,211 comments) says:

    Indeed, Ian, and many of your own coreligionists believe that Britain, the United States and Allies were on the wrong side. Or so one might suspect given how many times the New Zealand League of Rights appeared in fundamentalist hack rags like Challenge Weekly, or on eighties NZ Christian Right platforms, despite its rabid antisemitic raison d’etre. To say nothing of its role within the binding citizens referenda movement…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Lucia Maria (2,606 comments) says:

    Ryan,

    Thanks for admitting that you made her up. I did wonder if that was the case.

    Adele,

    I don’t doubt that women do vote differently than men. I consider voting to be very much a game of chess, and I vote accordingly. Though, in all my watching of politics over the last decade, I’m very cynical about the power of an individual vote. Politicians will say one thing at election time and then do completely the opposite when in power. Look at this bill before us – National’s position was that they weren’t looking at redefining marriage, yet now we have the prime minister in full support, and Labour who are not in government, looking to be governing from the back benches! It’s a farce. Therefore, votes make very little difference because voters will vote on a broad range of issues – that’s why I said what I did in my first comment – the power in an individual vote, even a woman’s vote, is insignificant.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Fletch (6,486 comments) says:

    Britain and the West were very nearly on the wrong side of history in WW2…should that have stopped them fighting the inexorable march of the Fuhrer and his ideas?

    The West is embracing those very same ideas now.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. iMP (2,418 comments) says:

    Structurally coupling children to limited parenting (single gender) for the sake of a myopic adult sexuality. Incredibly selfish.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. eszett (2,426 comments) says:

    Because men don’t have wombs and because children are part of the family thing one thing coming down the Pike will be payment for egg donation and surrogacy i.e rent-a-wombs shudder

    And eventually for the taxpayer to front up the cost for surrogacy – we are already paying for fertility treatment for lesbians.

    The abominations will just continue multiply

    ROTFL
    Worst.Scaremongering.Ever

    BTW, we are also paying for fertility treatment for straight couples.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. iMP (2,418 comments) says:

    “A change in opinion around the world” are you referring to the rise of militant Islam? 1/3 of the world’s nations now have majority muslim populations, I guess we should simply embrace that too, then, if its all about numbers and trends?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    I don’t think it’s necessarily helpful to bring the Nazis into it – it’s unnecessarily provocative.

    “I have seen the future, and it works!”

    “Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you.”

    Marxism is a much better fit, not just because people in the West really did think that collectivism was inevitable, but because modern liberalism shares the same impulse to remake natural structures in the image on Man – and we know how influential the Frankfurt School has been on the thinking of modern people.

    As I said, I think a lost cause is worth fighting for if you think it is right – but I don’t think that this is a lost cause. DPF looks at history and he thinks, “wow, in 20 years everybody will really pat me on the back for calling this one right,” – though at least he is good enough to acknowledge his Eurocentrism here.

    History is a much longer game than that. If same-sex marriage is a bad idea, or has really bad effects, then it will collapse under the weight of its own internal contradictions over the centuries. Of course, that doesn’t concern a lot of people – and if you’re one to rubbish our ancestors, you’re probably not one to care too much about our descendants either.

    Even in the worst case scenario – which I am far from convinced will occur – marriage won’t be pulled down. It is a natural institution, pre-political organisation. It will survive.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. adaman (42 comments) says:

    How about instead of government dictating what marriage is, we leave it open and let people interpret marriage as they wish to. By allowing the state to dictate what something is or isn’t is nothing more than nanny statism and we’re falling for it.

    Why don’t we make the interpretation of marriage be what two individuals want it to be and tell the govt and MPs to frack off and let us individuals to interpret it as we wish to, without a predetermined definition be chucked down our throats.

    Like/dislike this for what I’ve said in the first 4 lines as the following many of you won’t agree with.

    I believe if two homosexuals wish to call their union marriage, they should be able to, likewise if two religious people want to see marriage as only between two people of the other sex, they should be able to and as such govt has no right to essentially alienate populations via predetermined nanny statist definitions.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. gump (1,660 comments) says:

    @Fletch

    Do you consider the European Declaration of Human Rights to be the only statement of human rights in the world?

    The European Courts were asked to examine the couple’s claims against the European Declaration. The ruling that denied their claim is a commentary on the weakness of the European Declaration, not an absolute statement on human rights.

    I have the feeling you already know this.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Millerman (3 comments) says:

    “Britain and the West were very nearly on the wrong side of history in WW2…should that have stopped them fighting the inexorable march of the Fuhrer and his ideas?”

    Woo hoo, Godwin’s Law.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Scott (1,817 comments) says:

    The wrong side of history? I am always against this because God is against this. In Paul’s letter to the Romans chapter 1,homosexuality is called an abomination. That’s what it is and I would rather be on the wrong side of progressive fads than on the wrong side of God on judgement day. Those regretful MP’s will get their comeuppance if not in this life, then most certainly in the next.
    I will never marry gay couples and if I have to go to jail then I have to go to jail. And our church will never host gay couples and if we are persecuted by the state then that’s the price we will have to pay.
    Take heart those who are against this abomination, God is for you. If God is for us who can be against us?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. eszett (2,426 comments) says:

    I don’t think it’s necessarily helpful to bring the Nazis into it – it’s unnecessarily provocative.

    lol, unnecessarily provocative? So not wrong, idiotic and stupid, just unnecessarily provocative?

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

    Scott – what religion are you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    As for the “future generations” argument, I’d say the biggest obstacle to repealing same-sex marriage will be the “no one ever uses the law” argument as well as the “no one seriously thinks they’re the same thing” one.

    I’m perfectly comfortable in predicting that there are a number of people who vote for this thing today who will regret it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Fletch (6,486 comments) says:

    gump, well what do you base your idea of a “human right” on? What do you use to measure it?
    In my book, the idea of gay marriage and multiple partner marriage is no different. Why should one group’s idea of what is their “right” be upheld and supported and the other not?
    If gay marriage passes, won’t polyandrous marriage be far behind? I bet not.
    There’s already a group, the Polyamory Action Lobby (PAL), in Australia pushing for it.

    Here’s their online petition –

    The House of Representatives For too long has Australia denied people the right to marry the ones they care about. We find this abhorrent. We believe that everyone should be allowed to marry their partners, and that the law should never be a barrier to love. And that’s why we demand nothing less than the full recognition of polyamorous families.

    And the story in the Sydney Hub –

    The lobby contends there is no reason adults should not be able to form committed relationships with more than one person, and there is no evidence that smaller families are any better off.

    “Polyamory often isn’t a choice; if people love more than one person, they can’t help it,” the spokesperson said. “Even if they could [choose], why would it matter?”

    As far as the law is concerned, the lobby said the government should not have the right to restrict consenting adult relationships based on love and respect.

    “The legal, health and financial protections enjoyed by a spouse in a monogamous relationship must be extended to all partners in a family,” the spokesperson said. “A family should be about security, stability and love; not about its structure.”

    http://www.altmedia.net.au/polyamorists-get-organised/69802

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    eszett –

    Anything can be compared to anything. Nazism was a 20th century movement related to many others. There are common influences, themes etc running through both fascism, communism and progressivism. I also don’t deny that some people thought that the Nazis could not be resisted. Do you deny that? After all, that was the man’s point.

    I am just countering that because the Nazis are so widely reviled and discredited. It is not useful, as I am sure you will agree, and therefore unneccesary. We all know about Godwins Rule of Nazi Analogies. It’s not generally good to compare any contemporary thing to Nazism outside of an academic context.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Ryan Sproull (7,259 comments) says:

    The wrong side of history? I am always against this because God is against this.

    So don’t marry another dude.

    In Paul’s letter to the Romans chapter 1,homosexuality is called an abomination. That’s what it is and I would rather be on the wrong side of progressive fads than on the wrong side of God on judgement day. Those regretful MP’s will get their comeuppance if not in this life, then most certainly in the next.

    That sounds very fun for you.

    I will never marry gay couples and if I have to go to jail then I have to go to jail.

    You will not have to go to jail. Sorry.

    And our church will never host gay couples and if we are persecuted by the state then that’s the price we will have to pay.

    You will not be persecuted by the state. Sorry.

    Take heart those who are against this abomination, God is for you. If God is for us who can be against us?

    Believe what you believe. Live how you believe you should live. Just don’t try to use the state to make everyone else do the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. TheContrarian (1,091 comments) says:

    “I am always against this because God is against this”

    That’s fine – you can be against for your God but we don’t all believe in your God.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    A Camp in Israel was fined 20,000 for refusing to have a gay wedding ceremony

    That will eventually happen here as well once the law is in. A creeping net of new laws will ride on the same sex marriage bill

    Pastors who won’t marry gay couples will be fined

    Same-Sex Marriage Shuts Down Methodist Camp Ground
    http://blog.heritage.org/2009/01/06/same-sex-marriage-shuts-down-methodist-camp-ground/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Ryan Sproull (7,259 comments) says:

    A Camp in Israel was fined 20,000 for refusing to have a gay wedding ceremony

    That will eventually happen here as well once the law is in. A creeping net of new laws will ride on the same sex marriage bill

    Pastors who won’t marry gay couples will be fined

    Good news is that you’ll have me on your side if that happens. And I’m so fun.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    I hate to say I’m with The Contrarian here. Everyone is entitled to their religious belief but unless the majority of the people share your premises about religion – and the role of religion – then you’re going to have a hard time convincing them of anything (if, in fact, that’s what you want to do).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    I don’t hate to say I’m with Cato on this one.

    Christians can be a bit like the Labour Party, when they’re not arguing against the opposition they argue amongst themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. MT_Tinman (3,249 comments) says:

    I just wonder in the end, why would you want to be on the wrong side of history?

    That one I can answer.

    History has people enslaving other people, warring with and killing people because of where they live, what colour their skin is, which god they believe in, treating other people very badly indeed, treating where they live rather badly.

    History also has the converse.

    In the end, in a few years, I shall be dead. Gone and unlamented. What side of “history” I was on will be of no interest to anyone including myself.

    The simple answer then is; Because I simply don’t care what side “history is on. I shall make my own decision based on my knowledge at the time and change that decision whenever I feel like it.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    I am always against this because God is against this

    Mind you, Yahweh is also against working on the Sabbath. It is one of the Ten Commandments and so presumably of far greater importance than the one or two passing references to homosexuality.

    Yet you don’t keep the Sabbath do you Scott.

    You simply use the Bible to support your own bigotry, ignoring everything in it which might inconvenience yourself in the slightest.

    This is for you and your fellow fake Christians:

    http://www.openbible.info/topics/hypocrisy

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Nice of you to say PG. Let’s put the recent unpleasantness behind us. Although you might hate me for saying this:

    I really can’t see why the pro-SSM is so smug about polls showing that young people are so in favour of the reform. Why are the polls so rarely broken down by demographics other than age? What about ethnicity? I will agree that there has been a massive swing in favour of gay marriage among educated white people – probably the fastest shrinking demographic in the world.

    With an influx of Eastern Europeans and fecund Middle Easterners into a continent whre birthrates have fallen below levels that no society has ever returned from (and where the only Western Europeans breeding above the birth-rate are traditionalist Catholics) – why on earth would you think gay marriage is inevitable in the long run?

    It’s fitting, in a way, that the reorientation of marriage from child bearing is being spearheaded by the demographic least interested in procreation!

    As I said, I just don’t understand the smugness.

    It’s a bit like after the US election, when all the concern-trolls were giving the GOP advice about how to broaden their appeal. The standard advice went something like, “Gee you really need to reach out to the Hispanic community because it’s the fastest growing demographic so I guess you better embrace gay marriage to win them over because they’re such natural social conservatives.”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. eszett (2,426 comments) says:

    It is not useful, as I am sure you will agree, and therefore unneccesary. We all know about Godwins Rule of Nazi Analogies. It’s not generally good to compare any contemporary thing to Nazism outside of an academic context.

    My point is that Nazi comparisons in particular with same sex marriage are downright idiotic and plain stupid.

    Not “unneccessarily provocative” or “not useful”. That implies that the comparison is inflammatory, yet still valid.

    (Just to be clear, I am not saying and do not think that you meant it that way!)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    “Christians can be a bit like the Labour Party, when they’re not arguing against the opposition they argue amongst themselves.”

    In other words, Christians are people. What a remarkable insight.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Fletch (6,486 comments) says:

    Contrarian + Cato, but religion doesn’t even have to come into it.
    You can see what is natural and normal just by observation.

    We can know that sex between male and female is natural and normal because of what happens: a child is produced. The child is proof that something happens between a male and a female that results in that child. Again, one may look at the resultant child as a proof that this male/female union is meant to be that way and so it is a basis for both marriage and family.
    And this result of a child being born to man and woman happens again and again, day after day; it’s not a fluke but is the very essence of what it means to be a family.

    In contrast, a man and a man cannot have sex (coitus).
    Also women cannot have sex (coitus). They can never have a natural family of their own without a man.

    Marriage is all about family, although some will not have offspring, this does not preclude them doing so in many cases.

    If we were talking about a scientific experiment or of conservation the idea of going against nature would be seen as unscientific. Like trying to force together two atomic particles of the same charge just because we want to and think it’s not fair that they can’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    eszett

    I’m sorry, but as a matter of logic it wasn’t idiotic. Some people did think fascism was inevitable. Some people now think gay marriage is inevitable. In that context, it’s not idiotic – it’s not even necessarily wrong.

    But it is unhelpful because it just means we end up talking about Nazis with people, like yourself, using it as an excuse not to think logically about things.

    As I said, there have been plenty of other incorrect predictions:

    – World Communism;
    – End of History;
    – Malthusian crisis.

    Those are better used for the purposes of constructive debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    No hate Cato, especially when there’s a genuine effort to discuss and examine.

    I don’t know that there’s any intention to be smug. It’s just logical that if support is more prevalent in the younger demographic it’s more likely it’s a trend that will continue.

    If most of the support was in the 80+ demographic that support wouldn’t take long to literally die.

    But I think it’s also significant that there seems to be a switch towards supporting SSM going on in the mid ages, and that’s been particularly noticeable amongst the votes that matter, MPs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Fletch I agree with you.

    I oppose same-sex marriage on two grounds:

    1. Privately, for religious reasons;
    2. Publicly, for secular reasons.

    And despite my lack of success with 2. above, that is more likely in relative terms (however unlikely in absolute terms) to change people’s minds on the subject.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. RRM (10,001 comments) says:

    Hear hear DPF. Great post.

    I’d vote for you. ;-)

    Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t get one.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Fletch (6,486 comments) says:

    Very good article on marriage at the Heritage Foundation –

    Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.

    LINK

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Lucia Maria (2,606 comments) says:

    Marching on the ‘right side’ of history, a concept which is really Marxist in origin.

    A brilliant post by The American Conservative

    “Right side of history” is a claim deployed in political debate to delegitimate one’s opponents. It’s one thing to claim that events and social processes are moving in a particular direction, such that this or that goal is likely to be realized. It’s something very different to claim that History is a moral, even metaphysical, force that’s progressing towards a morally desirable conclusion. There’s no reason to believe this at all.

    Christianity teaches that history moves in a linear fashion, and that we are headed towards the final reconciliation between heaven and earth in the Parousia. This does not imply “progress,” though — especially because, in the Christian vision, the cruelest and most violent and oppressive period in the history of humanity will come into being just before good permanently triumphs. The Christian vision of history as progressing towards a final fulfillment may or may not be true, but it can’t be said to give false comfort that one’s own cause is justified by Progress. The closer we get to the culmination of History, the worse things will get for humanity, especially for Christians. Besides which, the Christian doctrine of original sin means that any concept of an earthly utopia is doomed. See A Canticle For Leibowitz for an imaginative exploration of the persistence of radical evil within the breast of humans despite material progress.

    The secular version of this comes from Marx and his materialist conception of history. John Gray wrote a book, Black Mass, about how thinkers inspired by the Enlightenment took the Christian notion of history as progressing towards utopia, and secularized it. That is, Marx taught that history was inevitably leading towards a communist paradise, a restoration of Eden in which the source of human conflict — a fight over resources — will have been exorcised.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. RRM (10,001 comments) says:

    Breaking wheels and bronze bulls were perfectly acceptable in western societies once.

    Thank god for progressive ideals. (With or without a capital G.)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    “I don’t know that there’s any intention to be smug. It’s just logical that if support is more prevalent in the younger demographic it’s more likely it’s a trend that will continue. ”

    Has it occurred to you that many people views are vastly different at 40+ than in their teens and early twenties. That of course does not always happen but often does due to life experience. I think there is a flaw in your logic.

    You are also ignoring what someone else posted about trend changing on sexual and moral issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    “in the younger demographic”

    I concede as much – but don’t you think it’s a little narrow to just look at the top line numbers.

    Do you remember, prior to 2006, the ‘permanent’ GOP majority in US federal politics as the Republicans started to wrack up huge majorities of the white vote? That trend has continued, but now the GOP control only 1/2 of 1/3 of the federal government – and only then thanks to gerrymandering – with no obvious prospects for renewal. The a rising tide of GOP popularity actually masked a deep undertow underneath.

    I think it’s possible that the same thing could be happening with gay marriage, support for which skews heavily towards the less fertile parts of the population. This is reflected in DPF’s own post, which admits that the trend is concentrated in the still predominately white West. Do you see any appetite for gay marriage in the most fertile parts of the world, the Middle East, the Subcontinent, and an Africa whose population might explode if progess against HIV continues?

    I’m not saying that a return to traditional norms is probable, or even likely. I do think that gay marriage is evitable, though.

    And whatever the case, I don’t think trends are a reason to support, or withhold support, for something you think is right.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    It’s just logical that if support is more prevalent in the younger demographic it’s more likely it’s a trend that will continue

    Peoples views change as they mature, Pete George. There are a large number of gays in the media and entertainment and they have used their positions for twenty or more years to create a (false) narrative about what it is to be gay and how cool it is.

    But as Cato has mentioned we are facing a demographic crisis, the future belongs to those who turn up and they wont be the scions of gays using reproductive technologies in significant numbers.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    It’s just interesting for me that the year that SSM starting achieving real democratic breakthroughs in the United States was the same year as the one where the fertility rate dropped below replacement.

    I know causation and correlation are different concepts. But correlation is needed for causation – and it just seems to neat a fit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. eszett (2,426 comments) says:

    Some people did think fascism was inevitable. Some people now think gay marriage is inevitable. In that context, it’s not idiotic – it’s not even necessarily wrong.

    No, cato, there is no logic in that either, the comparison purely based on what people may have said was “inevitable” is just nonsense. It is fallacious, overly simplistic and just plain wrong. It is idiotic.

    People think that if I drop this egg, it is inevitable that it will fall and shatter. People also thought that fascism was inevitable.

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

    eszett – if you read through my comments, I think you will see that we actually have a failure to disagree.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Fletch (6,486 comments) says:

    From that last link I gave – why Government recognizes marriage –

    Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits society in a way that no other relationship does.

    Marriage is the fundamental building block of all human civilization. The government does not create marriage. Marriage is a natural institution that predates government. Society as a whole, not merely any given set of spouses, benefits from marriage. This is because marriage helps to channel procreative love into a stable institution that provides for the orderly bearing and rearing of the next generation.

    Virtually every political community has regulated male–female sexual relationships. This is not because government cares about romance as such. Government recognizes male–female sexual relationships because these alone produce new human beings. For highly dependent infants, there is no path to physical, moral, and cultural maturity—no path to personal responsibility—without a long and delicate process of ongoing care and supervision to which mothers and fathers bring unique gifts. Unless children mature, they never will become healthy, upright, productive members of society. Marriage exists to make men and women responsible to each other and to any children that they might have.

    Marriage is thus a personal relationship that serves a public purpose in a political community. As the late sociologist James Q. Wilson wrote, “Marriage is a socially arranged solution for the problem of getting people to stay together and care for children that the mere desire for children, and the sex that makes children possible, does not solve.”[8]

    Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. Marital breakdown weakens civil society and limited government.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    I just wonder in the end, why would you want to be on the wrong side of history?

    That’s not the right question. In fact, it’s a silly question. Goodness, some people think John Key is a great guy despite him being untrustworthy and deceptive. Why would an intelligent person support such a clown? Maybe because they are free to do so…the fact they’re on “the wrong side of history” seems a rather strange argument to make.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Sofia (862 comments) says:

    The British press explains that the document the Queen signed specifically omitted references to “gays,” and one presumes transgendered people, “in deference to Commonwealth countries with draconian anti-gay laws.”

    The charter, dubbed a ‘21st Century Commonwealth Magna Carta’ declares: ‘We are implacably opposed to all forms of discrimination, whether rooted in gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds.’ The ‘other grounds’ is intended to refer to sexuality – but specific reference to ‘gays and lesbians’ was omitted in deference to Commonwealth countries with draconian anti-gay laws. Sources close to the Royal Household said she is aware of the implications of the charter’s implicit support of gay rights and commitment to gender equality.

    So just in case that wasn’t clear to you – Queen Elizabeth won’t be mentioning gays or trans people in her anti-discrimination statement, lest she offend countries that discriminate.
    http://americablog.com/2013/03/queen-elizabeth-gay-charter-discrimination.html

    So much for any meaning the Governor General’s Royal Assent will have for this bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    Fletch,

    You’ve said why marriage is good. You still haven’t explained why the state is involved.

    They are not the same thing.

    Your “justification” is essentially no different from that of the Nuremburg Race Laws prohibiting Jews from marrying Aryans. It’s all necessary for the good of society, home and hearth etc.

    The argument in a nutshell is that people like you must prevent me from marrying Mila Kunis:

    http://eajc.org/page34/news35881.html

    And that cannot stand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    Ross, what is your view on a binding referendum on this issue?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    And whatever the case, I don’t think trends are a reason to support, or withhold support, for something you think is right.

    I agree, but it can be interesting.

    I thought it through during the 2011 election campaign after discussing it at a meeting. At that stage I thought that Civil Union was probably adequate, but I was converted, and since then I have become more convinced it is the right thing to do (and I’ve seen and been involved in many debates).

    I’m older and I believe wiser on this issue.

    I think a lot of the mind changing on this occurred 6-12 months ago, when it became a public issue again since it had faded after the Civil Union Bill.

    I think John Key’s stance may have been quite influential, especially where it could have made a big difference, in the National caucus.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Ryan Sproull (7,259 comments) says:

    I oppose same-sex marriage on two grounds:

    1. Privately, for religious reasons;
    2. Publicly, for secular reasons.

    And despite my lack of success with 2. above, that is more likely in relative terms (however unlikely in absolute terms) to change people’s minds on the subject.

    Cato, the problem is that you only find your public secular reasons convincing because you hold your private religious reasons. Other people who don’t hold your private religious reasons won’t find your public secular reasons convincing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Harriet (5,110 comments) says:

    “….We should learn the lessons of history, not repeat them….”

    DPF’s famous last words! :cool:

    http://herrickreport.com/newsovietunion.html

    Well DPF, myself and others here have been posting comments that the West is going down the wrong road, and should immediatly turn around and seek another path. And that the first to do so is the true progressive!

    Also, that the West is standing on top of a cliff, and when we point out that it is dangerous to do so, the unthinking sheep label us ‘homophobes’ ‘racists’ ‘misogynists’ ‘haters’ & ‘religous nutters’.

    But hey DPF, if you think that we are all wrong -and that you are right- then don’t EVER complain about the EVER INCREASING size of the NZ welfare bill!

    Because the size of that bill is due to:
    easy divorce, extreme feminism, single parenting, political correctness, speech codes, the wreckage of the traditional family, liberalisation of sex, pornography, extreme sex education, gay pride, androgyny, political correctness and multiculturalism, – IN ALL DPF – the stupid belief that nz exceptionlism can defy the lessons of history: that the state can excuse people of their responsabilities and provide for them. :cool:

    The proletariat is no longer the working class but cultural fringe elements such as ‘man-hating females’, and the ‘sexually confused’.

    As Mark Latham the former Australian Labor leader said back in about 2009 “Australian Labour is a conga line of suckholes.”

    Look at NZ Labour 2013 “A dandy line of ……. ….holes.” :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Fletch (6,486 comments) says:

    wat, I thought my excerpt said EXACTLY why the State is involved in marriage. What part did you not understand?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproul, the problem with your response to Cato is that it reveals that you are not particularly intelligent.

    Let me explain it to you

    Children whose fathers stick with their mother at least until they are grown have a far larger chance of survival until adult hood than those raise by their mothers alone.

    And cultures that come up with ways that reinforce the bonds between men and women for the purpose of child rearing are going to persist while those in which these bonds are weaker will fade away.

    Christian marriage which is both momogamous and life long has been particularly successful in the regard and it is no accident that Christian Nations became the wealthiest and that Christianity spread because Christians and Christian marriage have proved to be the best way of raising children – you don’t have to invoke God in this, natural selection can account for it just as well.

    If you wanted to undermine a people, undermining the institution of marriage would be an excellant way of acheiving this goal if you are patient enough

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    “Ross, what is your view on a binding referendum on this issue?”

    I’d support one.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    Fletch,

    I thought my excerpt said EXACTLY why the State is involved in marriage. What part did you not understand?

    The bit where you thought that because something is good it has to be regulated by the state.

    It’s a complete non sequitur.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Ryan Sproull (7,259 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproul, the problem with your response to Cato is that it reveals that you are not particularly intelligent.

    Let me explain it to you

    Children whose fathers stick with their mother at least until they are grown have a far larger chance of survival until adult hood than those raise by their mothers alone.

    And cultures that come up with ways that reinforce the bonds between men and women for the purpose of child rearing are going to persist while those in which these bonds are weaker will fade away.

    Christian marriage which is both momogamous and life long has been particularly successful in the regard and it is no accident that Christian Nations became the wealthiest and that Christianity spread because Christians and Christian marriage have proved to be the best way of raising children – you don’t have to invoke God in this, natural selection can account for it just as well.

    If you wanted to undermine a people, undermining the institution of marriage would be an excellant way of acheiving this goal if you are patient enough

    Andrei, just so I’m clear, you’re saying that…

    1. Legal recognition of same-sex marriage will reduce the number of children being raised to adulthood by a mother and a father.
    2. Children being raised by two same-sex parents are less likely to survive to adulthood than children being raised by a mother and a father.
    3. Children being raised by single parents are less likely to survive to adulthood than children being raised by a mother and a father.
    4. So few children will survive to adulthood that New Zealand culture will fade away.

    Therefore same-sex couples should not be given legal recognition as marriages.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Harriet (5,110 comments) says:

    “…..2. Children being raised by two same-sex parents are less likely to survive to adulthood than children being raised by a mother and a father….”

    Stop being a fuckwit Ryan….although from past history I know you can’t!

    As I’ve said before to you Ryan:

    2 ass fuckers + 1 child phsycologist is NOT a parenting model – even of the 4th order.

    More IMPORTANTLY it is not a CHILDHOOD.

    Children who are ‘cared for and loved’ by gays are NOT parented by gays as those children don’t receive HALF of the parenting experiance – the other sex.

    Unless of course Ryan YOU think parenting is a COMMUNITY project that involves others of the opposite sex. Infact, just being able to have children in gay relationships IS a community project – isn’t it Ryan? :cool:

    Oh BTW – children who are ” b’r’ought up ” in gay relationships will SUFFER the loss of one NATURAL parent BEING their PARENT their ENTIRE childhood!

    If you think that the welfare of children is something for you to be a smug cunt about to Andrei – then
    as I’ve told YOU once before Ryan – Stay the FUCK AWAY from children! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Ryan Sproull (7,259 comments) says:

    “…..2. Children being raised by two same-sex parents are less likely to survive to adulthood than children being raised by a mother and a father….”

    Stop being a fuckwit Ryan….although from past history I know you can’t!

    As I’ve said before to you Ryan:

    2 ass fuckers + 1 child phsycologist is NOT a parenting model – even of the 4th order.

    More IMPORTANTLY it is not a CHILDHOOD.

    Children who are ‘cared for and loved’ by gays are NOT parented by gays as those children don’t receive HALF of the parenting experiance – the other sex.

    Unless of course Ryan YOU think parenting is a COMMUNITY project that involves others of the opposite sex. Infact, just being able to have children in gay relationships IS a community project – isn’t it Ryan?

    Oh BTW – children who are ” b’r’ought up ” in gay relationships will SUFFER the loss of one NATURAL parent BEING their PARENT their ENTIRE childhood!

    If you think that the welfare of children is something for you to be a smug cunt about to Andrei – then
    as I’ve told YOU once before Ryan – Stay the FUCK AWAY from children!

    That’s his argument as he said it, Harriet. I’m sure he can clarify, but if repeating someone’s argument back to them for clarification seems smug, there might be something wrong with the argument in the first place.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Harriet (5,110 comments) says:

    Your a smart guy Ryan…educated too!

    But if you keep bringing up children, and you then keep playing the ‘dumb cunt’ about children’s welfare – then I’ll keep calling you a ‘sick cunt’ till DPF kicks me off Kiwiblog! :cool:

    [DPF: 40 demerits – almost there]

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Ryan Sproull (7,259 comments) says:

    Your a smart guy Ryan…educated too!

    But if you keep bringing up children, and you then keep playing the ‘dumb cunt’ about children’s welfare – then I’ll keep calling you a ‘sick cunt’ till DPF kicks me off Kiwiblog!

    Harriet, I honestly believe that a child being brought up by a loving same-sex couple is good for that child. There are no perfect parents of any orientation, but if they love, protect and nurture the child, they’ve done their job. Same goes for single parents.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull – you strike me as a fairly good natured fellow who argues in good faith. However, on this occasion I disagree with your contention that my religion impairs my reasoning. Here’s why in 3 reasons:

    1 – I’m not sure you know enough about me personally to make that assertion. Because of that, I would prefer my reasons to stand or fall on their own.

    2 – I’m not sure you know enough about my religion. I am a Latin-rite Catholic. Our theology and practice stresses that good religion must be reasonable – must be informed by reason. Interestingly, Andrei – who said he is Orthodox – might well agree with the contention of his Church that the Catholic Church is infected by pagan logic to the extent that it lacks mysticism.

    3 – I readily accept that not all Catholic precepts should inform the civil law. As a Catholic, I oppose adultery, Protestantism, paganism and sacrilege. However, I would not propose to impose those beliefs on my fellow countrymen. I think that religious precepts should only intrude on public affairs when there is a case for a compelling, public reason. I believe that sometimes that will be the case, given that my Church does not teach that reason and faith are in opposition to each other.

    You are free to disagree with my reasons, of course. And you do. And most people at the moment seem to disagree with me at the present instance also.

    But I have given my reasons and that’s all I can do.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. OTGO (559 comments) says:

    For us to get to this point in history where bum marriage is about to be legal, something went wrong years back in biology classes where kids just weren’t taught that poos comes out of your anus and nothing and I mean nothing ever goes back in that hole.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Ryan Sproull (7,259 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull – you strike me as a fairly good natured fellow who argues in good faith. However, on this occasion I disagree with your contention that my religion impairs my reasoning. Here’s why in 3 reasons:

    1 – I’m not sure you know enough about me personally to make that assertion. Because of that, I would prefer my reasons to stand or fall on their own.

    I honestly wouldn’t have brought up the private/public thing if you hadn’t explicitly stated it. I avoid muddling intentions with arguments where I can, and I do approach your arguments on their own. I just think they fall rather than stand, and since you brought up the private/public thing, it seemed worth responding to.

    This is not an argument against your secular reasons for your stance, which I think fail on their own merits, but you’ve more or less admitted that you would hold your view regardless of whether or not you had any secular/public reasons to back it up. Am I wrong?

    2 – I’m not sure you know enough about my religion. I am a Latin-rite Catholic. Our theology and practice stresses that good religion must be reasonable – must be informed by reason. Interestingly, Andrei – who said he is Orthodox – might well agree with the contention of his Church that the Catholic Church is infected by pagan logic to the extent that it lacks mysticism.

    Any religion can be reasonable in retrospect. You just start from the assumption that your religion is correct and interpret all evidence in light of that fact. I doubt you’d find many religious people who’d say, “My beliefs are completely unreasonable – isn’t it great?!”

    3 – I readily accept that not all Catholic precepts should inform the civil law. As a Catholic, I oppose adultery, Protestantism, paganism and sacrilege. However, I would not propose to impose those beliefs on my fellow countrymen. I think that religious precepts should only intrude on public affairs when there is a case for a compelling, public reason. I believe that sometimes that will be the case, given that my Church does not teach that reason and faith are in opposition to each other.

    The thing is, the moment there is an actual compelling public reason for something, religious precepts don’t need to come into it. Christianity says don’t murder, but you don’t need to reference or even imagine Christianity to make a strong case for murder being illegal. Christianity says homosexuality is sinful, and it really seems to me that a bunch of people motivated by that personal religious belief start scrambling for arguments that don’t reference Christianity – but can’t find any.

    So they make arguments that seem obvious and compelling to themselves, from a Christian viewpoint, using terms like “natural and normal” as if they’re not synonyms for “good and godly” – but utterly uncompelling to people who aren’t starting from the assumption that Christianity’s where it’s at. I mean, Andrei just argued that not enough kids will reach adulthood for our culture to survive, for goodness’ sake. Four hours ago he was going on about abominations.

    I know he’s not you and you’re not him, and I do take your arguments on their own merits, and I consciously avoid referencing or reading intentions into my responses to your arguments, but I don’t find them compelling on their own merits, for reasons I’ve given any number of times.

    I appreciate the respectful response, though, and I hope my reply has been similarly so.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    Harriet, you deserve a (demerits-wise) kicking for (I think disgraceful) comments like that at 2.49 pm. It reflects badly on you and I also think it’s a poor look for the Kiwiblog community.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Harriet (5,110 comments) says:

    “….Harriet, I honestly believe that a child being brought up by a loving same-sex couple is good for that child. There are no perfect parents of any orientation, but if they love, protect and nurture the child, they’ve done their job. Same goes for single parents….’

    Idiot!

    Kids are being PLACED into a 4th order parenting model – that in itself is FUCKEN PISS POOR!

    There in NO REASON WHATSOEVER to place children into a 4th order parenting model.

    They would have a BETTER CHILDHOOD being placed into a 2ND ORDER parenting model – an adoptive parent relationship with 1MALE and 1FEMALE as parents, so that they then RECIEVE a PARENTING MODEL!

    Did you not get the point of what I said :

    “Children who are ‘cared for and loved’ by gays are NOT parented by gays as those children don’t receive HALF of the parenting experiance – the other sex.

    Unless of course Ryan YOU think parenting is a COMMUNITY project that involves others of the opposite sex. Infact, just being able to have children in gay relationships IS a community project – isn’t it Ryan?

    Oh BTW – children who are ” b’r’ought up ” in gay relationships will suffer the loss of one natural parent being their parent for their entire childhood!

    Even if you change the meaning of the word ‘parents’ Ryan – children will still not recieve the ‘parenting model’ as it consists of 1 male and 1 female.

    Children need more than JUST gays Ryan! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Ryan Sproull (7,259 comments) says:

    Harriet, you deserve a (demerits-wise) kicking for (I think disgraceful) comments like that at 2.49 pm. It reflects badly on you and I also think it’s a poor look for the Kiwiblog community.

    I’m not bothered.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Ryan Sproull (7,259 comments) says:

    Did you not get the point of what I said.

    I got the point of it, Harriet. I just disagree.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Harriet (5,110 comments) says:

    PETE GEORGE # “…..Harriet, you deserve a (demerits-wise) kicking for (I think disgraceful) comments like that at 2.49 pm. It reflects badly on you and I also think it’s a poor look for the Kiwiblog community…..”

    If DPF feels fit to give me demerit points for defending the welfare of children then he can, as it’s his blog! :cool:

    I’ve said time and time again that PARENTING is about having CONCERN for the FULL WELFARE OF CHILDREN.

    Ryan thinks that child welfare is simply about ‘jumping a low bar’ like being better than Nia Glassie’s mum!

    He’s being a fuckwit as he knows better – SO THE FUCK DO YOU PETE GEORGE! :cool:

    [DPF: You’re not demerited for defending children. You’re demerited for calling people cunts and fuckwits. 20 demerits gives you 110 so you get to have a break]

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Ryan Sproull (7,259 comments) says:

    Ryan thinks that child welfare is simply about ‘jumping a low bar’ like being better than Nia Glassie’s mum!

    Loving, protecting, nurturing. That’s not a low bar, Harriet.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “Children who are ‘cared for and loved’ by gays are NOT parented by gays as those children don’t receive HALF of the parenting experiance – the other sex. ”

    This statement is so profound it should be carved in stone and set outside parliamant

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Harriet will be missed

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Manolo (14,029 comments) says:

    Harriet, you deserve a (demerits-wise) kicking for (I think disgraceful) comments like that at 2.49 pm. It reflects badly on you and I also think it’s a poor look for the Kiwiblog community.

    P.G., stop being bloody condescendent and utterly sanctimonius, will you?
    Leave discipline to DPF, the owner.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. gump (1,660 comments) says:

    @Harriet

    When a parent dies, should the child be taken from the remaining single parent and given to a couple?

    That’s the logical conclusion of your argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    Get stuffed Manolo, like you I can say what I think here, but I promise not to be bloody condescendent and utterly sanctimonius on your blog if you don’t like that there.

    If DPF tells me not to do something I’ll respect that. Otherwise I’ll speak up as I see fit as I would in any social situation. If you don’t like that then tough.

    And I don’t care that several people indicate that they disapprove of what I said, and interesting that some have approved of Harriet’s behaviour.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    gump, Harriet obviously cannot answer but there is something wrong with your logic. Mind you that is not surprising for someone who does not know what an anus is used for.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Akaroa (580 comments) says:

    I haven’t read more than a quarter of the preceding posts so if I’m repeating anyone else’s point bear with me. (Probably far too late to arouse any further interest in this hackneyed issue!!)

    All I wanted to say was that no matter what legislation is passed to regularise or authorise the ‘marriage’ of two people of the same sex, I am one person who will never accept that such a relationship can ever warrant the acceptance of sensible, thinking people, and for whom this whole issue is laughably irrelevant!

    Should i ever come across in the future any misguided male-male or female-female wedded partnership, i’m afraid My years of polite acceptance of other’s lifestyle choices will go by the board and I’ll be unable to conceal my unbelieving hilarity at the nonsensical pseudo-enlightenment of such ridiculous couplings.

    This whole artificial concept of such ‘marriages’ – a concept which is evidently viewed seriously and accepted by so-called, self styled realistic and enlightened thinkers – is so ludicrous that I’m beginning to think that the final disintegration of logical and civilised society is already upon us.

    As i’ve said before in different contexts, i’m old enough to be satisfied that I ain’t gonna be around to see the eventual outcome of this latest example of social foolishness!! Thank goodness for that too!

    (BTW, I often feel sorry for ol’ David Farrar, He gets tied up in the most unbelievable crap at times!! Too much exposure to Thorndon-type morality and pretention, I reckon. I saw some when I was a drone working in a Govt department in Wellington. The same people talking to the same people talking to the same people all the time! Get out amongst the real Kiwis David, the people who laugh at pretentious crap like this so-called issue!!)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    Harriet,

    The discussion here is about gay marriage rather than gay adoption and parenting per se.

    However, anyone who claims to be thinking of the children must by definition leave open the possibility of gay adoption.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    Chuck – no, there’s not something wrong with gump’s logic.

    Same applies if one parent walks out – should the remaining parent hand over the kids to a couple?

    Can two same sex parents provide more parenting than a single parent?
    Can two same sex parents provide more parenting than a couple when one partner is away working most of the time?

    Should the children of a couple where one partner is an All Black or a Black Cap (or some other sport) and they are absent for long periods of time have temporary two parent care?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Redbaiter (9,503 comments) says:

    Peter George- did you write a complaining email to David Farrar alerting him to what Harriet had written?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    Red – no. All I did was make my comment here, all out in the open, knowing it would leave me open to criticism. It’s telling that I’m the one who’s frowned on (by a few).

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    The ideal situation for any child is for it to be raised and cared for by its biological parents. Virtually all children want this and everybody I have ever met wants to know what their real roots are.

    This is not always possible.

    For Government policy to create a situation which will lead to a further rise in kids disclocated from their biolofical roots is the height of irresponsibility and to do this to pander to adult selfishness, shameful and disgraceful.

    Today people are travelling to other countries, India for example, buying an egg, getting it fertilized in a petri dish and implanted into another woman to develop into a child with “two fathers”. This strikes me as cruel and, at the risk of being called a “bigot”, an abomination

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull – perhaps I should have been clearer. I would hold my private religious views regardless yes. But I wouldn’t argue for them to prevail in the public sphere unless they also coincided with a compelling public reason. Basically, because I think that the religious injunction exists because of some reason that also applies to the secular world.

    Here’s an example – I think theft is wrong and I also think it contravenes my religion. However, I don’t support laws against theft because of my religion, but because my religion forbids theft because it is bad for society. I’m not saying that homosexuality is akin to theft – clearly it doesn’t violate the non-aggression principle. What I am saying is that there are some religious precepts that are purely religious (e.g. transsubstantiation) and some that (at least I believe) have wider application.

    Moreover, I think the fact that you think all religion is reasonable demonstrates that you grew up in the West. Western religion is actually pretty unique in that regard – Eastern Christians put a much lower premium on reason as opposed to reason. Most schools of Islam rejects it as a violation of God’s absolute transcendance.

    “The thing is, the moment there is an actual compelling public reason for something, religious precepts don’t need to come into it.”

    I agree. In fact, that was my whole point in making the public / private distinction to Scott. I have opposed gay marriage in the KB combox for a while – and copped quite a bit of flack for being a god botherer. However, while I have hardly hidden my religion, I have never made religious arguments.

    In fact, my opposition to gay marriage is based on the reasoning of F A Hayek on the matter. He accurately pointed out that economic central planning fails because an economy is really a catallaxy. It is too complex and interconnected to handle repeated legal interventions. Later in his years, Hayek, though he was not religious, came to think that this applied to societies and customs too. A good book giving this analysis is the Counter-Revolution of Science – which gives analytical heft to the more elevated language of the English political-philosopher Edmund Burke who held the same, largely secular, views.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    “Chuck – no, there’s not something wrong with gump’s logic. ”

    Depends what planet you are on.

    It is a shame Harriet is off Kiwiblog. She presents some very good arguments. If you took time to read them properly you would not use such an absurd comparison. I cannot be bothered explaining something that should be self evident.

    Harriet I am involved in a conservative group if you would like to contact me at chuckbirdnz@gmail.com

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Fletch (6,486 comments) says:

    The discussion here is about gay marriage rather than gay adoption and parenting per se.

    Except that if you look at the Select Committee report, they ARE changing adoption law as well. They managed to sneak that in there, even though they know that some in favour of gay marriage are against adoption by gays.

    We acknowledge that some people feel very strongly about the issue
    of adoption of children by same-sex couples and transgender people.
    If the bill were to pass, it would make consequential amendments to
    the Adoption Act 1955 that would have the effect of enabling married
    same-sex couples to adopt children lawfully, as any married couple
    may do.

    Read the report here –

    http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/3955C9B8-9FCF-4EF8-B39B-6B4BE630B0D7/264032/DBSCH_SCR_5764_MarriageDefinitionofMarriageAmendme.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    This evil must be prevented at all costs:

    http://www.upworthy.com/these-gay-dads-wanted-to-give-a-speech-on-marriage-equality-and-what-they-got-in

    It’s the end of civilisation I tells ya.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Ryan Sproull (7,259 comments) says:

    Moreover, I think the fact that you think all religion is reasonable demonstrates that you grew up in the West. Western religion is actually pretty unique in that regard – Eastern Christians put a much lower premium on reason as opposed to reason. Most schools of Islam rejects it as a violation of God’s absolute transcendance.

    I should have been clearer. Most religions can be rationalised in retrospect by their adherents – the cleverer the adherent, the cleverer the rationalisation, but you’re still hard pressed to find a religious person who revels in the notion that their religion is irrational. Islam is no exception. Thinking Muslims are quite certain their religion is rational and reasonable. And to them, with their foundational assumptions, it is.

    I don’t think that all religions is reasonable. I think that almost all adherents of almost all religions find their beliefs to be reasonable. Experience their beliefs as reasonable.

    Your examples of theft and transsubstantiation just draw a line between when your religion dictates how people should act and when it dictates how people should believe. You don’t think the state should influence people to believe the mystery of transsubstantiation, but you do think the state should influence people to behave in certain ways – this being a case in point.

    Hayek made a very good case for people being free to live however they see fit, regardless of how the majority around them may judge their actions. But I’m not referring to him as scripture, and my arguments stand on their own merits, I’d like to think.

    The state should not be involved in encouraging people to live one way or another. Its current favouring of different-sex relationships over same-sex relationships by applying the culturally loaded and valuable term “marriage” to one and not the other is stepping beyond its mandate. Arguments against my position generally either devolve into “you don’t know what anuses are for”, talk of “abominations”, attempts to make it about children that fall apart under examination, and what amounts to “we’ve always done it this way, don’t rock the boat.”

    Everyone should be free to live as they choose, provided those choices don’t directly harm others. The state’s role, if it has a role, is to do no more than facilitate that space of freedom. It should not be involved in marriage at all, but if it is to be involved in marriage, the lesser evil is that it does so without imposing the values of some on the lives of all.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    What would be preferable for a child, living with one of their parents and that parent’s same sex partner or with hetero foster parents who are not related?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    It’s all in the bible – Paul was onto it in the first chapter of his letter to the Romans.

    Despite knowing the bible and what it said about was wrong doing Western Christendom decided to be pleased to allow the activiy legal sanction, and even recognise partnerships based on same sexuality.

    Many of the men took pleasure in recieving oral sex pleasure from their women and even asked for more, but often had to do things to the women that she actually asked him to do before this would even be considered. This despite the fact that the contraceptive pill meant that this form of birth control was no longer required. Thus there has been a gratuitous form of solidarity with same sex couples by the heterosexual community.

    Thus if humanity is to be judged for these actions – we will be judged together. For we are no better than them. They are as good as us, so why should we discriminate against them.

    We all have grace of God equally, and thus paradoxically we do not do this because we deny God, but based on confidence that any father would be on the side of all his children. We allow women equality, we no longer accept violent discipline of them or our children, we care and provide for each other and imagine our God to be much better than us, not some violent mass muderering hell torturing piece of trash that should have been buried at Gehenna by humanity a millenia ago.

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

    I am a young, married man and I know that the institution of marriage has enriched my life and made me a much better person. It has elevated my relationship with my (now) wife.

    So even though I personally accept the injunction of my Church with respect to homosexual activity, but we are a pluralistic society – and I am not an unfeeling monster on the subject. I absolutely understand why monogamous gay couples want access to the same institution and the deep social approval it confers. So while I accept that there are some people who think gay people have forfeited human dignity and deserve to be called cruel and names, I just don’t consider myself to be one of them.

    And yet, despite my sympathies, I simply cannot get past the fact that every recorded civilisation everywhere for all time (until about 20 years ago) has held the joining of men and women to be an essential part of marriage. That’s what people mean when they talk about a radical shift in marriage policy. The numbers are small, but the paradigm shift is enormous.

    What’s the reason for the old paradigm? Well, I can’t articulate it precisely. I am fairly certain it is oriented towards pro-creation and male fidelity. Even if, within the old paradigm, marriage has been open to infertile and elderly couples, I think this is different to opening up marriage to a class of couples that is always infertile. However, I accept that this reasoning is not fully articulated and remains somehwat vague. I do not think it’s going to convince many on its own terms.

    And yet, I cannot take the last step into existence. It is too great a leap when we are talking about the fundamental characteristic of an institution that has been considered essential to that institution in every known society at every known time (prior to 20 years ago) and especially when every known society has used that same institution as the fundamental social unit. Even when those societies were otherwise tolerant of gay couples.

    Because we can’t fully articulate the reason for that norm, I will not participate in it being messed with. This is where Hayek comes in:

    “It may indeed prove to be far the most difficult and not the least important task for human reason rationally to comprehend its own limitations. It is essential for the growth of reason that as individuals we should bow to forces and obey principles which we cannot hope fully to understand, yet on which the advance and even the preservation of civilization depends … The most dangerous stage in the growth of civilization may well be that in which man has come to regard all these beliefs as superstitions and refuses to accept or to submit to anything which he does not rationally understand. The rationalist whose reason is not sufficient to teach him those limitations of the powers of conscious reason, and who despises all the institutions and customs which have not been consciously designed, would thus become the destroyer of the civilization built upon them. This may well prove a hurdle which man will repeatedly reach, only to be thrown back into barbarism.”

    This is the ‘fatal conceit’ – it didn’t work for economic central planning and I have my worries for social central planning. I believe there is wisdom in those words and I believe them to be reasonable. Others may differ – but I reject the contention that they are fundamentally religious in nature, save as to the extent that the fallibility of man is a religious idea.

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

    Harriet talks like man. He just went a st-t-tep too Farrar.

    I have two observations. If you want to know about something, it’s usual to ask someone who knows something abut it. Why are we asking kids and queers about marriage?

    I have been married >40 years, and so have all my friends. I know all marriages are different, but many of the problems are the same. I am wondering if as an aspect of my rejection of homosexual marriage is it makes a mockery of the sacrifices I have made. I have remained faithful and forgone a lot of “adventures”. Faithfulness was very important to my wife, and my family is very important to me. My children have cost me millions and they have left NZ permanently. What was it all for? So a couple of sexually immature men, with no animal drive to impregnate women and guts to deal with the consequences, can usurp the word “marriage” and play at being married?

    Their arguments are so banal. So you don’t agree with homosexual marriage? “Don’t marry a man”. Rrriiiigght! You don’t agree with murder? Don’t kill anyone.

    Some couples don’t or can’t have children, “Are they not married?” That’s just a problem with definitions, not concepts. Cars have four wheels but some have three. A chair is still a chair if one leg breaks off.

    Here’s the thing. The vagina has evolved to receive the penis, the primary purpose is reproduction (insemination), and the secondary purpose is also reproduction – bonding, pleasure.

    I say mutual masturbation and anal sex is not genuine sex. It’s fake. It’s sexual, like substitute-masturbation, but it’s not sex. Any more than sticking food up your nose is eating.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Ryan Sproull (7,259 comments) says:

    It feels wrong to respond to such a thoughtful and well-written post so briefly, but I believe this is a removal of social central planning, not an imposition of it. After this law change (lesser of two evils, as mentioned above), individuals will be freer to plan for themselves.

    Only very slightly. Nominally. But there you go.

    Also, Cato, I accept that your reasons are not purely grounded in your religious views. You’ve convinced me of that.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    Cato, marriage has changed over time, even in recent history.

    When I was young and “lived together” it was not the done thing, none of my friends had done that and it was something you needed to be discrete about, even within family circles. That has changed substantially.

    That was just after we started to change from the “man rules the house and owns the wife’ era. Marriage is much diferent now, an optional choice everyone is open about.

    A hundred years ago it was difficult for poor people to divorce, even if they’d been deserted by their spouse, so bigamy was common.

    I see the proposed bill as a very minor change in comparision to those examples, affecting far fewer people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    My children have cost me millions and they have left NZ permanently. What was it all for? So a couple of sexually immature men, with no animal drive to impregnate women and guts to deal with the consequences, can usurp the word “marriage” and play at being married?

    Perhaps not everything is about you?

    Let people pursue their own happiness according to their own lights.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Ryan Sproull (7,259 comments) says:

    I have been married >40 years, and so have all my friends. I know all marriages are different, but many of the problems are the same. I am wondering if as an aspect of my rejection of homosexual marriage is it makes a mockery of the sacrifices I have made. I have remained faithful and forgone a lot of “adventures”. Faithfulness was very important to my wife, and my family is very important to me. My children have cost me millions and they have left NZ permanently. What was it all for? So a couple of sexually immature men, with no animal drive to impregnate women and guts to deal with the consequences, can usurp the word “marriage” and play at being married?

    Your children are alive, happy, thriving? That’s what it was all for. Come on now.

    Gay couples wanting the same legal recognition that you have isn’t making a mockery of your sacrifices, Dennis. I suspect that plenty would respect them, as I do. Same-sex marriages aren’t going to take away from what you’ve done for your children, and your successes there.

    Some couples don’t or can’t have children, “Are they not married?” That’s just a problem with definitions, not concepts. Cars have four wheels but some have three. A chair is still a chair if one leg breaks off.

    So try seeing same-sex marriages as three-wheeled cars. The same essence that makes an infertile straight couple a marriage is there in a same-sex marriage – love, commitment.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull – I think we are at an impasse about whether it is an imposition on an organic institution recognised by the state or the freeing of that institution from the strictures of the state. That’s life. The arguments are made so let the chips fall where they may.

    Pete George, I agree that marriage has changed a lot in recent years. It’s one of my complaints. However, I do agree the institution should be ossified. An interesting fact is that, prior to the age of Christendom, consent was not an important element of marriage. By insisting on consent in marriage vows, the Church set in the train the events that have brought us here – why else would the question of gay marriage arise in the West and nowhere else?

    That’s not to say that every change is for the better though – and it’s also not to say that this reform isn’t a fundamentally different reform to all the others.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. big bruv (14,126 comments) says:

    A question for the sky fairy followers………..Just how will the gay marriage bill change your life?

    When this bill was first discussed I was not sure how I felt about it, at the end of the day I did not really care if it passed or not. However reading the pure hatred from the likes of Andrei, Bedwetter and the evil Lucia have convinced me to support the bill.

    I suspect that this will be the only time I support anything put forward by Louise Wall. I hope it passes and I will enjoy the pissing and moaning from the religious bigots.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    The ultimate right side of history line was in the book “the end of history” – written when the Cold War was won and the USA was to be the one global super power of the 21st C. The same ethos permeated the Project for a New American Century and dare I say it some Christians thought they could bring in the Advent simply by taking control of the US government when the “Christian” nation had global supremacy.

    The real ambtion of the USA is/was to remake the world in its own image (the real new world order issue and thus the paranoia in the USA about any other world order being an alternative, both internally and externally). This is of Western Christendom, and even us secular types inherit it – albeit to advance democracy and human rights (rather than a capitalist market and religious identity order to the civil society model).

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

    To continue on a personal level. I behaved the way I did because I thought it was the right thing to do. I don’t see how allowing homosexuals to call their relationships marriage will help reinforce those values in society. They are already decaying as people become more self-centred and selfish in their relationships.

    Furthermore, a homosexual relationship, in general terms, is of very little consequence to society. Too few will get married (or remain faithful) to reduce the prevalence of STDs, and few children are available for adoption. Of course if there is a large number of surrogacies that might change.

    Ryan. I’ll just say one thing about three-wheel cars like the Reliant Robin, they were not very stable. Not anywhere near as good as say the Reliant Scimitar. Is that what you meant? (Sorry, couldn’t resist… :) )

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. calendar girl (1,261 comments) says:

    “mandk (13) Says:
    March 12th, 2013 at 10:21 am

    David Farrar spruiking gay marriage again.
    Methinks he dost protest too much.

    [DPF: 20 demerits. If I was gay or bisexual I’d be open about it. I think it it those who get threatened by gay marriage that are often fighting inner demons]”

    I respect the fact that it’s your blog, DPF, and clearly you have an unbridled right to deal with comments and / or contributors as you choose. But I’m surprised at your reaction to mandk’s relatively harmless (perhaps even tongue-in-cheek?) comment.

    If I had been reading mandk@10:21 prior to your reaction, it would never have occurred to me that his comment might attract demerit points. In my personal view, it seems over-sensitive on your part.

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

    Marriage is not all it’s cracked up to be. Going down together:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9923351/Vicky-Pryce-and-Chris-Huhne-brought-to-justice-at-last-in-a-tragedy-of-their-own-making.html

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. thedavincimode (6,867 comments) says:

    Andrei/kowtow

    Bums to the walls boys and practice sleeping on your backs. :twisted:

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    I hope it passes and I will enjoy the pissing and moaning from the religious bigots.

    It’s not just about religion, it’s about also law and about deception. There’s a political meme called cognitive infiltration which involves the promotion of political agendas by representing those ideas as the norm in popular media. One of the ways that cognitive infiltration is implemented is by introducing alternative meanings for words. In this case it is about promoting the idea that marriage means the civil union of two human beings, rather than the historical meaning of a lawful union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.

    As well as the obvious introduction of same-sex “marriages” , there is the distinction in meaning concerning human beings. In law a human being may be of lower legal status than a man, and this reduction of status may be of such an extent that a human being is described as a monster. The legal consequence of this loss of status concerns inheritance. Blackstone writing that monsters and children born out of lawful wedlock are incapable of inheriting real property (land).

    A monster hath no inheritable blood, and cannot be heir to any land. —Ballentine’s Law Dictionary (1930).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    Primary teacher job threat over gay marriage storybook (UK)
    10 March 2013

    http://bobmccoskrie.com/?p=7279

    This is the sort of thing that will follow soon. Not right after this bill becomes law but no doubt sometime after the next election.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Reid (16,632 comments) says:

    This issue is noteworthy for the fact it is the biggest social engineering change in history and yet it has garnered many conservatives via its pwogessive “human wights” meme. This is a Travistock triumph of the first order.

    Many conservatives have been fooled by the “it doesn’t affect me or my marriage” argument. Duh. It’s not about you or your marriage. It’s about 3 generations from now, 75 years. That’s what it’s about. And your children’s children will sure as heck be affected. Too bad many conservatives lack the perspicacity to see beyond their noses isn’t it but that’s what Travistock relies on. Perhaps that’s why they call all of us “useless eaters.” They regard us like locusts, needlessly consuming the world’s precious resources, don’t you know. Congratulations, fools. Those of you who don’t see this, conservatives and pwogwessives alike, have just proved their point.

    Secondly this is as some said above also about gay adoption, which note: has been snuck in, with nary a word. See, if they’d talked about gays bringing up children, they wouldn’t have had half the support they have garnered because it completely changes the complexion of the debate. And they all knew that. So they didn’t mention it did they? Think that was an accident? And their choice not to mention it shows how much regard they have for the most vulnerable members of our society, doesn’t it. Which shows the sort of people they are, doesn’t it. Which makes all you conservatives and pwogwessives who support it even less perspicacious, doesn’t it.

    It’s very boring, repeating the same old points, time after time after time and having the useless eaters bleat continually about their same tired old memes. It makes me wonder if Travistock isn’t correct in their assessment of us, at least those of us who support this. Too bad myself and some of us above who already see this for what it is are lumped in with the rest of you morons, makes me quite ashamed, actually. A bit like being in 5D, with all the farmer’s sons…

    BTW thanks UT, for cognitive infiltration. I know what it is, I see it all the time, but I didn’t have a name for it

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

    Oh I don’t know, Farrar’s stance seem quite reasonable:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/eightyearold-boy-marries-61yearold-woman-because-the-ghost-of-his-grandfather-told-him-to-do-so-8528831.html

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. nasska (11,779 comments) says:

    I don’t understand why Christians are so against gay marriage.
    Jesus had two dads & he turned out alright. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    JK should never have gone to that gay parade and danced with the fireman, look what’s happened now.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    As ever, Reid prides himself on seeing through the conspiracy.

    Be it aliens, the Illuminati or just plain old letting other people live their own lives, he is not fooled for a moment.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Yvette (2,845 comments) says:

    Nasska – I don’t understand why Christians are so against gay marriage.
Jesus had two dads & he turned out alright. :-)

    No, Nasska, he ended up bloody crucified – not really alright :-(

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. nasska (11,779 comments) says:

    Yeh….it got a bit messy towards the end Yvette, but we’d be hard pushed to blame it on his upbringing. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    If the children of gay parents end up crucified then I’d like to change my vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    But he rose again and look at the corporate income he spawned Yvette! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. nasska (11,779 comments) says:

    The franchisees are creaming it JB. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Yvette (2,845 comments) says:

    He knew what Judas was up to – in fact told him to do what he had to.

    But stiill I am puzzled as to Winston Peter’s idea to upgrade civil union to equal marriage.
    Apart from the use of the word “marriage”, and the opportunity to adopt a child as a couple rather than an individual, what other difference is there?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    But it’s all for the glory of god nasska! :)

    http://www.nairaland.com/729658/vaticans-colossal-wealth-started-prosperity

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Perhaps Winston has been chatting to Lynda? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    Travistock, that is either trevail in a drought or when the sheep experience cognitive dissonance – because if God is on one side someone else has to be organising the secular opposition.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    The breathless TV1 reporter recently said live when reporting on gay marriage that he wanted his father to see him get married. He didn’t mention what his father might have thought about that. I guess he didn’t expect him to under-whelmed.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. nasska (11,779 comments) says:

    They might get separated from a fair bit of that wealth if some of the bummed boys are successful in court JB. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    As ever, Reid prides himself on seeing through the conspiracy.

    Things aren’t always what they seem.

    Technically NZ’s political system is a conspiracy. What makes it really interesting is that the religious roots of the system are a fundamental part of the deception.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    But stiill I am puzzled as to Winston Peter’s idea to upgrade civil union to equal marriage.
    Apart from the use of the word “marriage”, and the opportunity to adopt a child as a couple rather than an individual, what other difference is there?

    Inheritance. Marriage originally meant a lawful union of a man and a woman. Without inheritance children acquire land as personal property rather than as real property. The state has no lawful interest in real property, so the elimination of inheritance is another way that it can gain control over people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Reid (16,632 comments) says:

    As ever, Reid prides himself on seeing through the conspiracy.

    Not really wat, it’s not difficult so no pride involved. It’s just sad that ignorant people call it a “conspiracy,” I mean what is that? It’s a label, isn’t it. It’s ironic isn’t it that while the gay lobby so vigorously pursues the use of the word “marriage” because they know precisely what a label means because, per Travistock research, the words “civil union” doesn’t have the desired social change effect, people like yourself use another label in a derisory manner precisely because you know the power it has, but yet at the same time, people like you deny it’s all about use of a label. Isn’t that ironic, wat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Yvette (2,845 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth – It is doubtful inheritance has anything to do with it.

    Apparently the fact that “Non-married couples are not permitted to adopt children, although people in non-marital relationships can adopt as individuals” is the only difference between “marriage” and “civil union” … and the use of the word ‘marriage”
    Winston Peter’s may not know what he is talking about, which wouldn’t be a New Zealand first.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Ryan Sproull (7,259 comments) says:

    The breathless TV1 reporter recently said live when reporting on gay marriage that he wanted his father to see him get married. He didn’t mention what his father might have thought about that. I guess he didn’t expect him to under-whelmed.

    If you’re talking about Matty McLean, you can get some idea here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10850682

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    It is doubtful inheritance has anything to do with it.

    The reason why inheritance is particularly relevant is that the Parliament misleads people about the law of inheritance, which is part of the common law. Parliament says that common law is equivalent to case law, but dictionaries of law like Blacks have consistently maintained that common law is the practice and consent of the people, and includes case law.

    The law of inheritance relates to real property, i.e. land.

    From Blackstone:

    4. A MONSTER, which hath not the fhape of mankind, but in any part evidently bears the refemblance of the brute creation, hath no inheritable blood, and cannot be heir to any land, albeit it be brought forth in marriage: but, although it hath deformity

    5. BASTARDS are incapable of being heirs. Baftards, by our law, are fuch children as are not born either in lawful wedlock, or within a competent time after it’s determinationl.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk2ch15.asp

    A civil union is not lawful wedlock, civil unions occur by licence.

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

    Poof the magic dragon
    Hero on a band wagon
    Breathing fire and smoke
    So in marriage be his poke
    Decorum to hang his hat on.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    Ever thought of some basic poetry lessons Dennis?
    Or even giving up plagiarism?

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

    @Nosty. No. No thanks for the advice, either. Just stick to shooting your mouth off, old son… ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    You must feel like a dickhead Dennis, writing such crap poems with stolen themes and words.
    But I guess it makes you feel good, just like a dickhead.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. ChardonnayGuy (1,211 comments) says:

    There’s only been one acknowledged defection from the ranks of marriage equality parliamentary supporters- National Rangitikei MP Ian MacKelvie.

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

    CG – when was that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Scott (1,817 comments) says:

    Just while you and I are here Cato, I must disagree with your point about private religious views and public secular arguments. If God is the God who created the world, who will judge the living and the dead, and has been most fully revealed in the form of his son Jesus Christ, isn’t that something we should make public?

    I must disagree with the idea that the public square should contain only secular arguments. That really is playing the atheist game. They might not like religious arguments? But still the Bible is the foundation of our beliefs. Therefore we need to proclaim that publicly.

    I appreciate there has been a move to marginalise Christianity into a private spiritual thing that should not be put in the public square. I think that is a wrong move for us to embrace.

    As for me I think we should be more public and more insistent and more radical. If we become private Christians then we are not very good Christians.

    Because one day Jesus will come back in great power and great glory and all the world will see it. If judgement day is coming then people need to know. I think we should be more radical and more public in proclaiming our faith. I urge all Christians to embrace suffering for the gospel to proclaim the truth of Jesus Christ as Lord and saviour of all people and all nations.

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

    Scott,

    Do you believe in freedom of religion or not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Scott (1,817 comments) says:

    Yep

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

    Well – do you not agree that a constitution predicated on religious freedom should only regulate the behaviours of its subjects or citizens when that regulation is not intended to coerce observation os a specific religious belief?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Scott (1,817 comments) says:

    Well the difficulty I see is that all rules and regulations and laws have a perspective behind them. They can come from a Christian perspective or an atheist one or some other perspective. What we are seeing today in gay marriage and other legislation is the assumption of secularism. The assumption that God is not important.
    If Christianity is not publically proclaimed then secularism will win the day by default. Every law involves the imposition of a world view. I believe in Christ and I will push the truth of Christ at every opportunity. In the same way the godless will continue to push their agenda.

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

    Were the pagan Greeks on Antiquity in favour of gay marriage? What about the pre-Christian Romans. What about East Asian cultures (past or present)? What about Gauls, Cimbri, Celts, Huns, Nubians, Arabs or Zulus?

    They’re cultures don’t originate from a Christian viewpoint and yet not one of those cultures thought gay marriage was possible.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    Scott, proclaiming the gospel is not a synonym for establishing a ruling order over others – is this not why the coming of the Kingdom of God is posed as occuring at the end of human history?

    After all, if it were, then this kingdom would rise and fall like others on the Earth.

    You also have to factor in a way in which freedom of religion allows freedom of personal belief and freedom of speech (testimony) in areas of the world where Christianity is a minority religion. Thus have these human rights available to all.

    Ethical behaviour is supposed to operate at a higher level than imposed law.

    Cato, have you considered that the liberalism of our era – end of slavery, equality for women and even provision for minority behaviour (where mutual consent exists) is based on

    1. the idea of all being equal before God.
    2. God being a father who would include all his children in his kingdom.

    The concept of discriminatory judgement, as to what we should belief and how we should behave, as a condition for acceptance as a person of worth as one of the group is part of our human culture. We identify people as being of our group culture based on the way they look and sound and whether they believe and behave as we do, and we often build a concept of God to justify our cultural way – our discrimination against others different to ourselves. Minorities within cultures of course being discriminated against as a matter of course for being outside the norm.

    The other factor is that in the past we have been more of a subject to the habitat. First we advanced beyond hunter gathering to crops and flocks but we remained procreative as other kinds were, based on bio-determinism of sexual attraction. Today our knowledge is such that we can manipulate habitat, thus we are less creatures of it. We are not fooled by virgin births (we know what seed insemination can do for both a widow and an unmarried woman), we realise why a woman waits to old age to give birth to a child with a claim to the husbands estate (no its not his child, its a descendant of his using the seed of one of his sons by another woman). And yes gay men and lesbian women can become the parents of children without going outside the sexual partnership of their relationship. And if they do so across their two same sex couples or use the seed of the woman’s brother or the egg of the mans sister (born to a paid surrogate) is a matter of their choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. Scott (1,817 comments) says:

    SPC and Cato, thank you for your responses. I am asserting that Christians have as much right to the public square as anyone else and I reject the idea that Christianity is private and the public square should be secular. That’s my point.
    The Greeks in antiquity were notorious for their embrace of sodomy. Men would marry a woman but their lover was a boy. So Christianity is very relevant to the acceptance of homosexual behaviour in a society.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    I believe in Christ and I will push the truth of Christ at every opportunity.

    Scott advocates the legalisation of slavery and for anyone who does the slightest bit of work on the Sabbath to be stoned to death, along with disobedient children. And for clothing made of mixed fabrics to be made illegal.

    Oh wait, Scott. This means you have to stone yourself to death since, rank hypocrite that you are, you ignore the Sabbath.
    I think the only means to do this is to somehow roll a huge boulder down on yourself. Tell your slaves to mind their fingers if they are helping you with this.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Scott – you misunderstand me. The Greek city states were, for the most part, very tolerant of homosexuality. Many cultures are and have been. We are today.

    But the ancient Greeks would not have conceived of such a thing as gay marriage – they would have found the idea absurd.

    What I am driving at is that traditional marriage isn’t a peculariarly Christian norm. To say Christians believe in it because it is true is not the same thing as saying it is true because Christians believe in it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. Scott (1,817 comments) says:

    Cato, very good, thanks for the clarification :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. Scott (1,817 comments) says:

    Wat, my dear chap. You are talking about Old Testament law. We Christians are under the new covenant, not by law but by grace. We are Christians not Jews.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    And of course the “problem” with a faith based on grace of God is only in telling other humans what they should believe and how they should behave to receive it …

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. Scott (1,817 comments) says:

    SPC, I must say I do get tired of that argument about the Christians telling others what to do. Particularly when the godless are redefining marriage and think they are being gracious by granting an exemption for pastors. Who are they to tell the church who to marry and what the church must believe? That’s the trouble when you don’t believe in God. Government becomes your God. You want to know a logical outcome of a nation without God? Brave new world. Now that’s telling people what to do and think!

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

    SPC – from a religious P.O.V. what are you saying – that Our Lord didn’t set down or affirm standards of behaviour?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    Scott, it’s interesting how you want to bring Christianity into public place debate, but are not willing to defend Christian practice as to discriminating as to who receives grace of God.

    Does the Christian God discriminate? Or only your Christian God? And if grace of God is accurate and yet is not in accord with the grace of God taught by Christianity, is the Christian God below the higher God of grace of God.

    To put it bluntly, no church and no faith on Earth decides grace of God, only God. Any other position is atheism at source, where men create a God to justify imposing their order of rule on others. It’s just a monstrous arrogance.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    Cato, is belief in an order of rule in accord with the faith in God of one man a requirement to receive grace of God? I think you would find that Jesus ultimately teaches that God decides matters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. Scott (1,817 comments) says:

    SPC, not quite with you? Can you provide an example of what you are referring to?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. Ryan Sproull (7,259 comments) says:

    To put it bluntly, no church and no faith on Earth decides grace of God, only God. Any other position is atheism at source, where men create a God to justify imposing their order of rule on others. It’s just a monstrous arrogance.

    I don’t think they’re claiming to decide the grace of God; they’re claiming to know how God has decided.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    You are talking about Old Testament law. We Christians are under the new covenant, not by law but by grace. We are Christians not Jews.

    Yahweh hands down what is supposed to be a moral code, and you decide you can simply ignore it.

    Either killing people for working on the Sabbath is the morally right thing to do or it is cruel murder for a non-offense. It can’t be both. It can’t be one thing on one day and the other on the next. And it can’t apply to some people but not others.

    The same for slavery. And the same for all the other Biblical laws. Either something is moral or it is not. It is, after all, you fake Christians who like to bask in your superiority over “moral relativism.” Yet here you are telling us that you simply opted out of the majority of the Bible.

    If you reject the OT “covenant” it means you recognise its barbarity and complete immorality. It means you recognise that the magic pixie called Yahweh is no moral teacher, it is instead a barbaric and cruel monster who spread an entirely immoral set of laws.
    It means that citing Biblical “authority” is completely meaningless, because you are only citing the bits which you personally chose not to reject utterly: meaning it is your morals you are advocating, not the evil pixie’s.

    And let’s not get started about the fact that you also ignore anything in the New Testament which would inconvenience you. Turn the cheek? Nope. Live in absolute poverty. Fuck that, magic pixie.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    Ryan, they don’t teach what God has decided, but they seem to think they know what is required to be worthy of grace of God.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. Ryan Sproull (7,259 comments) says:

    Ryan, they don’t teach what God has decided, but they seem to think they know what is required to be worthy of grace of God.

    Well, yes, that’s what they believe – they believe that information has been revealed to them, by grace or scripture.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    Cato, are you claiming that any standard of behaviour Jesus set determines whether grace of God is achieved? No man of the Christian faith has kept those standards. He taught the ideal, we will all fall short of. That was the point of teaching to a higher standard than the law, there was grace of God to continue life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. Scott (1,817 comments) says:

    Wat, is there an award for the angriest fellow on the Internet? I always like that saying, keep calm and carry on. Let’s take the sabbath. It was a command from God to the people of Israel. For they were God’s people and were to be different to those around them. The severe penalty is to make sure the people followed it. If you knew death would result then you are very unlikely to break that commandment. Now we are under grace and not the law, the penalty no longer applies. That’s why it’s called the new covenant. It is different from the old.
    And do try and calm down. It is very hard to understand anything if your overriding attitude towards it is hostile contempt.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    Ryan, the conflation between grace of God and scripture occurs because Jesus is between the old and new – the word of the law of the OT covenant nation and the grace of God enabling life after death in the kingdom of God.

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

    SPC – we have a failure to disagree if all you are saying is that those who fall short of the law may receive grace. That does not imply that we don’t know what the law is or that breaking the law should be encouraged.

    As for Old Testament literalism – it has never been a problem for me. I am a Catholic, and so recognise the OT for what it is. To quote the renowned historian Hilaire Belloc:

    “[Protestants] had begun by saying, ‘I deny the authority of the Church: every man must examine the credibility of every doctrine for himself.’ But it had taken as a prop (illogically enough) the Catholic doctrine of Scriptural inspiration. That great mass of Jewish folklore, poetry and traditional popular history and proverbial wisdom which we call the Old Testament, that body of records of the Early Church which we call the New Testament, the Catholic Church had declared to be divinely inspired. Protestantism (as we all know) turned this very doctrine of the Church against the Church herself, and appealed to the Bible against Catholic authority.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    Cato, some examples

    1. A man and woman divorce their partners and marry in a civil marriage.

    Do they receive communion afterwards?

    2. Two women and two men, each couple commits to a same sex sex civil marriage

    Do they receive communion afterwards?

    Given the church may regard their actions as equally wrong – sexual activity in partnerships not acceptable as marriages in the eyes of the church and that they would continue in these new marriages; what is the church position?

    The couples have committed to not being of the higher standard of obedient faith asked for by the church.

    So will they be denied communion and if not is this acceptance that grace of God is unconditional and not bound by the higher standards the church makes known to its members.

    PS We can go onto issues like open and continued use of contraception.

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

    1. The Church does not consider the marriage to be valid (assuming one or both are Catholic). They are not entitled to receive communion.

    2. The Church does not consider the marriage to be valid. They are not entitled to receive communion.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    If a women is known by the priest to be either on the pill if not infertile after years of childless marriage – will the priest start asking questions and if she finally admits contraception use, ban her from communion?

    The average couple in Italy is having only one child.

    Does the church teach that those banned from communion are denied grace of God?

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

    If somebody flagrantly commits a mortal sin – and remember that the essence of a marriage is that it is a public act – then the priest should withold communion under canon 915. Not publicly humiliate them, mind you, but to take them aside and politely explain why giving them communion would involve a compounding of their sin by adding sacrilege into the mix.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Either killing people for working on the Sabbath is the morally right thing to do or it is cruel murder for a non-offense. It can’t be both. It can’t be one thing on one day and the other on the next. And it can’t apply to some people but not others.

    Laws are not necessarily universal. Judaic law was always specific to the twelve tribes of Israel, although you could argue that some of the law, like the prohibition against murder, applied to all people. Just as laws may not apply to all people, they may not apply for all time. The common law maintains that when the reason for a law no longer exists, then that law becomes void.

    Judaic law has often been questioned or deprecated by the Hebrew prophets, particularly regarding animal sacrifice. The new covenant of Christianity is not the same as the new covenant of Judaism, which is less severe than the old covenant, although it still only applies to the twelve tribes.

    The doctrine of universal law belongs to Christianity. The RCC could be called the Universal Church of Rome, since catholic (katholika) means universal. This doctrine is present within the Anglican Articles of Religion (Article XXXVII), and has effect because of the religious nature of the oath of allegiance.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    Scott,

    Is there an award for the biggest hypocrite on the Internet?

    The point is that the magic pixie is either handing down moral codes or it is simply making up shit as it goes along.

    If the Sabbath law is a moral code then by definition it must apply to everyone always. And if it isn’t then, along with all the other ridiculous-yet-murderous laws, not only does it demonstrate the vile, barbaric nature of the magic pixie, it also means that there is no reason whatsoever to imagine that any of the Bible has anything to do with morality. It is just a list of the whims and caprices of an evil pixie. By definition it can have no moral force or relevance.

    This means that we might read in the Bible that Yahweh doesn’t like homosexuals. So what? The Bible is just a litany of the bigotries of a genocidal racist. Disagreeing with genocidal racists is more likely to lead to a moral outcome than blindly following their instructions.

    In short, if you can reject the Sabbath than anyone can reject anything fron the Bible.

    Just as you safely reject the Sabbath and the need to live in absolute poverty, so right-minded people can and should reject laws around slavery and homosexuality.

    Ugly,

    Laws are not necessarily universal

    Moral laws are, which is what we are talking about here. It’s different for moving traffic offences.

    If the Bible has no moral authority – and these contradictions show that it doesn’t – then it is nothing.

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

    To paraphrase Terry Eagleton:

    “Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Wat Dabney on biblical criticism.”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Wat, like I said, the prohibition against working on the sabbath is not universal. Simply not working one day of the week is not an ethical issue, the prohibition is only relevant within the original context.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. Scott (1,817 comments) says:

    Wat my dear fellow. You must allow for God to bring forth a new covenant. The old covenant didn’t work because the people of Israel couldn’t keep it. They couldn’t keep the law. So God sent his son Jesus to die for our sins once and for all. That meant that the price has been paid for our sins. And so the sacrificial system was abolished. It was no longer needed. The penalties invoked in the old Testament such as for sabbath transgressions also no longer apply.
    In the Old Testament God worked through his chosen people, the Jews, to be a light to the nations. The Jews could not keep their side of the covenant. So God is doing something different, it’s a new thing, through his son Jesus Christ.
    Wat, I do hope you try and grasp this. Because it’s holding you back from seeing the goodness of God and his grace and mercy.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Scott, the Christian interpretation of the crucifixion doesn’t work within Judaism. The old covenant did work because the people kept it, for a while at least. The Christian new covenant is very different to the Hebrew new covenant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    Scott,

    You are talking complete mumbo-jumbo.

    It is meaningless drivel. It’s just that because the subect happens to be magic pixies you think it’s okay to resort to special pleading and nonsensical mysticism.

    Morality doesn’t change just because some people can’t adhere to it.

    We don’t say that since some people break our clearly moral law about murder that, okay then, murder is now acceptable.

    Either the OT laws were moral guidelines or they were just arbitrary whims.

    Which is it?

    If they were moral, then they all apply now.

    If they weren’t then not only is the magic pixie exposed as a capricious barbaric monster, but its revised set of instructions can also be safely dropped in the nearest rubbish bin as being of absolutely no moral consequence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. Scott (1,817 comments) says:

    No they were moral guidelines for the people of Israel. God has instituted a new covenant, a new agreement between man and God. So the old laws are no longer in force. There is a new agreement and new guidelines because now the law is written on our hearts.
    If you dismiss it as mumbo jumbo and not even try to understand how can you ever be the wiser?
    To be honest with you, you seem a bit stuck. Like you dismiss the very idea of God, you don’t believe in God’s existence. At the same time you believe God is evil. So you don’t believe in God while hating God at the same time. It’s a contradictory position, one which incidentally is shared by Richard Dawkins.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Either the OT laws were moral guidelines or they were just arbitrary whims.

    What is today called OT law is comprised of different things, cheifly mitzvah, meaning commands, chuqqah, meaning statutes, and torah, meaning teachings.

    English common law was established by King Alfred the Great by incorporating much of the Judiac philosophy, beginning with the ten commandments. Christianity was also part of the cultural matrix at this time, but the common law was based more on reason than on faith.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. Scott (1,817 comments) says:

    But yes the rules about murder haven’t changed. Murder is still wrong in the Old Testament and the New. But the rules about sabbath observance have. So have the rules about sacrifice. We don’t go to church and sacrifice a lamb anymore because Jesus was the once and for all sacrifice. So the sacrificial system has been abolished. So the rules related to the sabbath and worship and sacrifice have changed because there is a new agreement. The rules about murder and theft being wrong have not. That’s fairly straightforward I think? Try and understand old chap, otherwise you’ll spend even more of your life needlessly being angry with God.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    There is a new agreement and new guidelines because now the law is written on our hearts.

    The Hebrew new covenant refers to torah as teaching, rather than law as a set of rules.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    We don’t go to church and sacrifice a lamb anymore because Jesus was the once and for all sacrifice.

    That’s a matter of belief. Animal sacrifice didn’t have a particularly auspicious beginning for the Hebrews, ending it by torturing an innocent man to death would make no sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    they were moral guidelines for the people of Israel.

    They were either moral guidelines for everyone or they weren’t moral guidelines at all.

    So which is it?

    Were they moral guidelines, in which case they must be universal and apply to all people for all time, or were they arbitrary whims?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    Cato, yes I get the difference between Catholics who make a public civil marriage that would not be allowed by the Church and a woman who chooses to privately use contraception.

    The latter speaks to don’t ask don’t tell – if they choose not to confess or publicly declare their continued wilful use, in contradiction of church policy, then they continue to receive communion.

    This then raises questions as to the role of communion meal participation in redemption.

    Is participation in the sacrament of communion required for salvation by grace of God in Catholic theology (as distinct from the wider Christian faith – for example the POW and his wive were both divorced and were unable to marry in the Church of England, even so the future head of the Anglican Church still takes communion)?

    I can appreciate that there are standards held by a church, but can the church really determine that there is such a thing as a mortal sin if one is in breach of these standards? Is marrying a divorced person a “mortal sin” according to other churches? Does each church determine what mortal sin is in their own eyes?

    Surely this just demonstrates a distinction between those higher standards held by the churches of Christendom and the concept of unmerited grace of God.

    On the other point of doctrine as to bible status, there is the Hebrew canon OT accepted by the Protestants – there are a few extra books in the Catholic Church OT canon. The distinction probably occured because the Hebrew canon was only finalised/determined after the Cross and fall of Jerusalem. One could presume that the Catholic Church view was that they had lost authority to declare word of God by rejecting Jesus and the Protestant that it was a mere formalisation of the earlier standard POV amongst Jews before Jesus was born.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. Scott (1,817 comments) says:

    Well the rules around worship and sacrifice have changed. That was not God being arbitrary and capricious. Rather he introduced a new covenant with Jesus coming into the world. So the rules relating to sacrifice are no longer needed. The ceremonial laws relating to temple worship also have been superseded.
    However God’s moral character and laws and principles remain.
    The 10 commandments still apply. So as in the Old Testament, murder, lying, coveting etc are still against God’s laws and statutes. Hope this helps explain the situation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    Scott et al, the simplest way to understand it is this

    1. the higher or more permanent law is the ten commandments, it is not so much law but the expectation of those of Godfaith and is not heard but written to be received intact across generations.
    2. the rest of the law is that heard by men, it is/was of the covenant nation, and it is as heard in each generation. All nations have laws, but the law code changes/evolves.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    The vote on the second reading was 77 votes to 44.

    Slightly down on the 80 votes at the first reading.

    NZ First called for a referendum to decide.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    1. the higher or more permanent law is the ten commandments, it is not so much law but the expectation of those of Godfaith and is not heard but written to be received intact across generations.

    So, keeping the Sabbath is a timeless requirement, and indeed identifier, of any real Christian.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    “NZ First called for a referendum to decide.”

    I bet the Green’s opposed NZF’s amendment – hypocrites.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    So as in the Old Testament, murder, lying, coveting etc are still against God’s laws and statutes.

    There are no laws and statutes in the formal sense in the new covenant, only torah, i.e. teaching.

    All nations have laws, but the law code changes/evolves.

    Codified law does not evolve, it is either abandoned or replaced.

    So, keeping the Sabbath is a timeless requirement, and indeed identifier, of any real Christian.

    That’s arguable. Christians are taught that the law is a curse and that it is faith, not works, that justifies a man.

    The common law, being based on the ten commandments from the time of King Alfred the Great, incorporates the underlying philosophy of Judaic law. Parliament misrepresents the nature of common law, describing it as case law.

    The common law, which is a body of law built up from decisions made in the United Kingdom and in New Zealand.

    http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/t/the-new-zealand-legal-system

    Parliament’s religious bias is due to the oath of allegiance to the “Supreme Governor” of the Anglican Church, an oath being an act of religion. NZ’s head of state appears to be breaking her coronation oath to “maintain the Laws of God” in her promotion of sexual equality. This religious bias includes the oppression of minorities through the assumption of universal jurisdiction (Article 37 of the Anglican Articles of Religion). The extent of oppression can be seen in the mass grave at the Anglican residential school in Brantford, Ontario. Witnesses also attest to her direct involvement in the forced disappearance of ten Canadian children in 1964.

    http://itccs.org/2013/03/08/a-legal-notice-to-all-agents-of-the-so-called-crown-of-england-and-elizabeth-windsor-and-to-all-canadians/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    Ugly,

    Call it laws, call it teaching. It doesn’t matter.

    What matters is whether these laws/teachings were moral instructions and directives – in which case they apply to all persons for all time – or whether they were just some made up shit. If the latter, then Yahweh is exposed as a sadist with a sense of humour. And if the former, well, anyone calling themself a Christian must respect and follow all the OT prescriptions.

    Remember, working on the Sabbath is a crime worse than rape, which is not one of the essential Ten Commandments and is not punishable with a barbaric death penalty.

    Any so-called Christian who does the slighest work on the Sabbath is, according to the Bible, worse than any rapist. Yet they give themselves license to do it again and again and again.

    And these same hypocritical worse-than-rapists are here spewing their indignation about consenting homosexuals.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. Doctor Who (52 comments) says:

    We cannot prove there are no gods, but the gods we know we created.

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

    “If you wanted to undermine a people, undermining the institution of marriage would be an excellant way of acheiving this goal if you are patient enough”

    Because it gets at the next generation and that is what the Homosexuals and their supporters want, access to the next generation.
    Note the change to the adoption laws not being debated about.

    There should be a referendum on this as it changes society in a sociological structural way.
    But there won’t be because all those arguing against the proposed changes are bigots and not worth listening too.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. Black with a Vengeance (1,865 comments) says:

    Mark my words and just between Yuan me, screw the Greenback. And to be Franc, let the Euro take a decent Pounding…it’s the pink dollar we should all be on our knees to.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    What matters is whether these laws/teachings were moral instructions and directives – in which case they apply to all persons for all time

    Persons aren’t relevant when you are talking about teachings. Students are relevant, and ordinary students are people.

    Persons are only relevant in the context of obligation.

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