Quotes from Marriage committee stages

March 28th, 2013 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

Some good speeches last night during the committee stages. No amendments got accepted but I would make the point that I had no problem with one of the amendments – it was more than it is un-necessary.

I believe no marriage celebrant should be forced to officiate at a marriage that they don’t wish to. As a matter of law, I don’t think they can be forced under the current Act. Section 29 talks about authorising, but not obliging. This means that for example Catholic priests can refuse to marry a divorced person.

There is also the practical issue that Kiwis are pretty common sense on these things. Why would anyone want to force an unwilling celebrant into marrying them, on what should be their happiest day. You’d be nuts to. So while there are some important principles at stake here, let’s not think that this will ever have practical impact.

Now the Select Committee said that there is a concern that possibly some church ministers could face an issue under the Bill of Rights Act. Bearing in mind the fact no Catholic priest has ever faced action for not marrying a divorcee, I think the possibility was remote. However they said let’s be explicit instead of implicit and give celebrants who represent a religion a clear statement they can not be forced.

One of the amendments yesterday was to extend that explicit exemption to all celebrants, not just religious ones. I didn’t have a huge problem with this. In fact I am a bit nervous about singling out celebrants who represent a religion as more deserving. So that amendment passing wouldn’t have been a major issue for me. But likewise if no celebrant had an explicit exemption, I’d be okay with that also as I believe the current S29 which only authorises but not obliges is enough protection. And finally of course it is all highly unlikely to ever be tested as no one wants an unwilling celebrant at their wedding.

Anyway some extracts from MPs speeches. :

 And can I just point out an issue of reality, which is that this is unlikely to be a problem. On one of the most important days of your life, I do not think that any couple is going to want to have someone presiding over their ceremony who does not want to be there and who is there only under the threat of legal action. That is why this has never been an issue since 1955. It has not been an issue since the Civil Union Act came in in 2004. I do not believe it is going to be an issue going on into the future.

And on the referendum issue:

Members mentioned Switzerland, where they do these issues by referenda all the time and as a result women did not get the vote until 1971—1971. I want to tell members the reasons that were given at the time were that men and women are fundamentally different. On the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs website they point out, saying … What the department said at the time—one of the reasons given as to why women should not be given the vote—was that “It wouldn’t promote equality because their natural modesty would stop them going out to vote when pregnant, and since rural women have more babies than those in town, this would give an unfair advantage to the latter.”

People can always find a reason to oppose change.

:

There is one final element that influenced me, and it was this. This bill takes nothing away from anybody. It actually takes nothing away. Those who argue that it does somehow reduce us as a society, in terms of our spirituality, certainly have a difficulty with me because there is nothing about my relationship, my family, my marriage that is negated or diminished in any way. I know that the institution of marriage has been developed for a long time, and no doubt will continue to develop. It is not set in a form that has always been the same. It has always developed. A bit like our society and our civilisation, this institution will also develop.

:

I have certainly struggled with this bill and given it a great deal of thought because it lies in the territory between two of my core political philosophies. My conservative instincts on one hand lead me to respect traditions and the wisdom of centuries. Marriage has traditionally been conceived as being between a man and a woman, and in the British and Christian traditions for centuries it has been between one single man and one single woman. That has been the case only because it has made perfectly good sense. Institutions and ideas change over time, but the conservative in me makes me hesitate before changing something that has served society well for so long. I certainly understand and respect the strength of feeling of many New Zealanders who feel that we should keep things the way we are. Running parallel to that, however, my guiding political belief is my commitment to freedom for people to live their lives in different ways with respect. Life is interesting, society is dynamic, and culture is diverse when people are free and have the liberty to live in different ways. It was 25-odd years ago when we agreed that the State should not outlaw homosexual acts and very few people disagree with that now. So I can understand why some gay couples would like to have access to the institution of marriage. People often ask “Well, why do they want marriage when they can have civil unions already?”. The answer is, of course, that words are important, which is why people on both sides feel so strongly about it. On balance, I have decided that for me freedom or individual conscience trumps tradition, so I am supporting this bill.

A nice contribution from Goldie, on balancing his beliefs.

My background has been that I was raised in the Christian faith in the Baptist church. Many of my relatives and friends from that background are disappointed that I am voting for this bill, and I understand their disappointment, but I would remind them that the Baptist church was born out of the idea of non-conformity. The early Baptists gathered together because they disagreed with aspects of the established church and suffered terribly for their individual beliefs. That tolerance of religious non-conformity, which English-speaking peoples had arrived at, certainly by the nineteenth century, was fundamental in establishing many of the freedoms and the liberties that we enjoy today.

Paul is a writer of history so knows his stuff.

It is highly likely the third reading will be on Wednesday the 17th of April.

Tags: , , ,

171 Responses to “Quotes from Marriage committee stages”

  1. dime (9,430 comments) says:

    “Why would anyone want to force an unwilling celebrant into marrying them,”

    are you for real DPF? the gay community hates catholicism. lots of shit head gay activists would demand to be married in a catholic church.

    [DPF: Really. How many gay couples have tried to have a civil union in a Catholic Church? Note that a consecrated area such as a church can't be forced to be made available for such a ceremoney]

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    There is also the practical issue that Kiwis are pretty common sense on these things. Why would anyone want to force an unwilling celebrant into marrying them, on what should be their happiest day. You’d be nuts to. So while there are some important principles at stake here, let’s not think that this will ever have practical impact.

    You can’t be serious.

    This is certainly not an unprecedented event in other countries that have legalized gay marriage, do you still not see the slobbering mass of ideologues waiting in the shadows DPF?

    I think DPF still thinks this is about marriage!

    [DPF: I'd be willing to bet a fairly large amount of money that there will not be any court action in the next 12 months by any NZer trying to force a celebrant to marry them]

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Manolo (13,368 comments) says:

    I can almost hear DPF’s howls of delight.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. RRM (9,453 comments) says:

    the gay community hates catholicism.

    I can’t think why…?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Arthur - AmeriNZ (1 comment) says:

    “Why would anyone want to force an unwilling celebrant into marrying them, on what should be their happiest day.” You hit the nail on the head, DPF. There hasn’t been a single case of a gay activist, “shit head” or otherwise, ever suing to force a Roman Catholic priest (or a Rabbi, or an Imam, or a Baptist Preacher, or… well, you get the idea) to perform a marriage for a same-gender couple. Not one. Ever.

    Also, most Kiwis are now married outside of churches—what on earth makes marriage equality opponents think that same-gender couples want a church wedding more that any other Kiwis? And, of course, there are churches that WANT to perform marriages for same-gender couples, but current law denies THEIR religious freedom to do so.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Chuck Bird (4,682 comments) says:

    Why would anyone want to force an unwilling celebrant into marrying them

    DPF, Do you honestly believe that? Homosexuals are pushing this to be accepted in a most aggressive manner and strongly oppose a referendum when if they won they would be a lot more like to be accepted.

    They have taken legal action overseas just to show they can or out of vindictiveness.

    Every now and then we get a small group of homosexual activists who try to take legal action to donate blood. Why the hell would anyone want to donate blood when it is not wanted?

    The answer is much the same as why they are pushing this legislation – to score a political point.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 25 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Redbaiter (7,623 comments) says:

    I really do not want to hear any more crap from these useless bastard politicians.

    Or from anyone who has pushed and propagandised and bullshitted and tried to fool us with their corrupt select committee process or used the bogus phrase “marriage equality” especially.

    I am just so sick of the manipulative way this has been achieved and how so many who should know better have sold out to what is so plainly divisive Marxist crap, and who have blindly supported a big progressive government push to force something ( a new definition of traditional marriage) on NZers that they do not want.

    They made their bed, and they can fucking well lie in it, especially at election time.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. RRM (9,453 comments) says:

    You’ll vote for a Labour-led government if this goes through Redbaiter? :-P

    Wow, it must be the end times…

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. ByterNZ (25 comments) says:

    Add an amendment to the bill that adds compulsory paternity testing for all births in NZ, and I think that a large number of people who are quietly against gay marriage would be satisfied.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. dime (9,430 comments) says:

    RRM – thats not the issue.

    you can just imagine some smug wanker insisting he is married in a catholic church. playing up for the media etc

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Andrei (2,500 comments) says:

    The craziness goes on and serves to hilight the mediocrity of our “elected” representatives.

    As a practical matter this will have no impact what so ever on the living arrangements of the so called “gay community” but it will irrevocably change the fundamental meaning of marriage from its time honoured purpose of raising children socialized in their parents culture and ways to that of sanctifying adult sexual preferences whatever they may be.

    This is the product of an over indulged, self absorbed, over priveledged group of people, used to having their every whim pandered too.

    It is nothing short of disgraceful and it is of course the last gasp of a dying culture, and a culture that deserves to end up in the dustbin of history which is where it is headed

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. RRM (9,453 comments) says:

    dime – I was at a lesbian civil union a few years ago.

    The bride was a former Student Union President, and the other bride was just… a big loud lass.

    Even those two did not turn their day into a political stunt…

    So no, I’m struggling to imagine anyone doing something like that. Well maybe some knob, but you get knobs in this life.

    The gays aren’t doing all this because they LIKE fighting for stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Jimmy Smits (246 comments) says:

    Andrei (1,988) Says:
    March 28th, 2013 at 1:34 pm

    The craziness goes on and serves to hilight the mediocrity of our “elected” representatives.

    As a practical matter this will have no impact what so ever on the living arrangements of the so called “gay community” but it will irrevocably change the fundamental meaning of marriage from its time honoured purpose of raising children socialized in their parents culture and ways to that of sanctifying adult sexual preferences whatever they may be.

    This is the product of an over indulged, self absorbed, over priveledged group of people, used to having their every whim pandered too.

    It is nothing short of disgraceful and of course the last gasp of a dying culture, and a culture that deserves to end up in the dustbin of history which is where it is headed

    The funniest thing about comments such as yours Andrei which use phrases such as “disgraceful” and “craziness” etc. Is that you are nothing but a fart in the wind, the marriage bill will be passed, and your significance is of nothing to the changing world today and you die out just like your outdated religion.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. kowtow (7,626 comments) says:

    Common sense?

    I reckon the ordinary New Zealander has plenty,it’s the politicians I worry about.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    RRM (6,702) Says:
    March 28th, 2013 at 1:19 pm
    the gay community hates catholicism.

    I can’t think why…?

    Maybe they see all those sodomite priests as competition.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. RRM (9,453 comments) says:

    Maybe they see all those sodomite priests as competition.

    :lol: Dude! Let the thread run for a couple of hours before you drag it down to that level!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. dime (9,430 comments) says:

    [DPF: Really. How many gay couples have tried to have a civil union in a Catholic Church? Note that a consecrated area such as a church can't be forced to be made available for such a ceremoney]

    Dimes theory is they have been on their best behaviour. gay marriage being the end game.

    If they had tried that earlier it would have been big news and may have put 1 or 500,000 people off their cause.

    People speak about the gay community like they are are one group. nice people etc they have their share of scumbag activists, just like some of them are good buggas.. maybe a poor choice of word but yeah..

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Ed Snack (1,737 comments) says:

    Nothing to me speaks more plainly about the level of sheer self deception that proponents of same sex marriage (oh sorry, bad, bad, me, marriage EQUALITY) than David’s interpolated comments above. The push for SSM has nothing to do with equality or marriage as such, it’s a political concept, a big FUCK YOU to the straights out there who just don’t get it, and especially to that most outmoded of institutions, the church.

    You’re going to get a few hundred politically active homosexual types jostling to be first in line and to get their names in the paper as daring and progressive types . The new “normal”, married but same sex. Then it will be almost forgotten about until the next contrived outrage, probably forcing unwilling churches to marry them You don’t get that from divorcees because divorcees aren’t genuine card-carrying members of “the victims collective”, and hence they have no political or “intellectual” backing for any campaign.

    And yet this was the number one political action movement for the past, what, 18 months or so. The number one important issue facing the western world. I wonder what it is supposed to be diverting us from looking at instead.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Tautaioleua (282 comments) says:

    DPF is unmarried and fatherless. I can’t for the life of me understand his ‘passion’ for the cause.

    [DPF: It's called a belief in doing what is right. I can't guarantee I am fatherless by the way! But I think I am. I was equally passionate about keeping the drinking age 18.]

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Tom Jackson (2,458 comments) says:

    No the law is fine as it stands. A celebrant is a public official and cannot discriminate. If a celebrant wished not to marry a mixed race couple, that would also be wrong.

    It’s fair to give members of established religious groups a pass, but not celebrants in general, because priests are also “private officials”.

    Don’t want to marry gays? Don’t want to marry mixed race couples? Then don’t be a celebrant.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Tom Jackson (2,458 comments) says:

    Every now and then we get a small group of homosexual activists who try to take legal action to donate blood. Why the hell would anyone want to donate blood when it is not wanted?

    How horrible to have that fag blood in your veins. I hear that blacks and Jews sometimes donate blood. Better watch out or they might give you some of that too.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Don the Kiwi (1,593 comments) says:

    I note DPF has quoted only those speeches that favour his cause.

    Or are you telling us, David, that no-one spoke against the bill?

    I contacted my MP, Simon Bridges on Monday, and told him that if this goes through on National’s watch, I will resign the party, and NEVER vote National again.

    There are other sensible conservative alternatives, who don’t pander to every progressive whim.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. kowtow (7,626 comments) says:

    kea

    If those priests are sodomites then so are homosexuals.

    Not “gay”, sodomites.

    Goose gander.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Tom Jackson (2,458 comments) says:

    The funniest thing about comments such as yours Andrei which use phrases such as “disgraceful” and “craziness” etc. Is that you are nothing but a fart in the wind, the marriage bill will be passed, and your significance is of nothing to the changing world today and you die out just like your outdated religion

    I know.

    I get the feeling that a great many commenters on KB live in constant fear of tripping and falling onto an erect penis.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    I am ok with gay marriage.

    I oppose:

    1. Gays adopting non related kids.

    2. People being forced to marry same sex couples against their religious (or other) beliefs.

    Marriage only effects those in the relationship and that is no body elses business. The other two things effect other people.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    kowtow (3,951) Says:

    March 28th, 2013 at 2:01 pm
    kea

    If those priests are sodomites then so are homosexuals.

    Not “gay”, sodomites.

    Goose gander.

    Kowtow, I am still trying to find the point your making ?

    “If those priests are sodomites then so are homosexuals.” Call them what you like. You will see I use various names to describe our arse bandit brothers, including poofters of the cloth.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. kowtow (7,626 comments) says:

    kea you’re ok with sodomite marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Chuck Bird (4,682 comments) says:

    There are other sensible conservative alternatives, who don’t pander to every progressive whim.

    You are right there. I hope you and others sign this pledge. My vote at this stage is either going to the Conservative Party or NZF.

    My Marriage Pledge

    Tick the statements below that you wish to pledge

    I will not use my electorate vote to vote for an electorate MP who supports changing the definition of marriage.

    I will not use my party vote to vote for a political party whose party leader supports changing the definition of marriage.

    http://www.mymarriagepledge.org.nz/

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Fletch (6,025 comments) says:

    DPF is unmarried and fatherless. I can’t for the life of me understand his ‘passion’ for the cause.

    He is trying to make amends for the petition he got people to sign in high school.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Fletch (6,025 comments) says:

    Some are suggesting that the gay marriage thing is really more about silencing or marginalizing the church. They may be right.

    As long as there are still Christians who actually follow Christ and uphold his word, a vast amount of people around the world — never mind Islam — will never ever see gay marriage as anything other than a legal encroachment of God’s intent.

    So those Christians must be silenced. The left exerted a great deal of energy to convince everyone that the gay lifestyle is an alternative form of normal. It then has exerted a great deal of energy convincing people that because the gay lifestyle is just another variation of normal, gay marriage must be normalized.

    Meanwhile, those Christians are out there saying it is not normal and are refusing to accept it as normal because of silly God dared to say marriage is a union between a man and woman.

    Any Christian who refuses to recognize that man wants to upend God’s order will have to be driven from the national conversation. They will be labeled bigots and ultimately criminals.

    Already we have seen florists, bakers, and photographers suffer because they have refused to go along with the cultural shift toward gay marriage. There will be more.

    Once the world decides that real marriage is something other than natural or Godly, those who would point it out must be silenced and, if not, punished. The state must be used to do this. Consequently, the libertarian pipe dream of getting government out of marriage can never ever be possible.

    http://www.redstate.com/2013/03/26/gay-marriage-and-religious-freedom-are-not-compatible/

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    kea you’re ok with sodomite marriage.

    I Kea [Nestor notabilis] are ok with the filthy sodomite dammed getting married.

    I have made that crystal clear many times. Attaching different labels to homos will not change my view kowtow.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. BlairM (2,286 comments) says:

    I was rather angry that this fairly common sense amendment didn’t go through.

    Then I realised that it would stop clergymen of “unapproved” denominations from registering as official celebrants. I like that! The State can have its gay marriage, and the Church can ignore the State and its silly certificates. Everybody is happy.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Grendel (951 comments) says:

    you can always spot the authoritarian in a lefty, they talk about freedom when they are actually talking about force.

    Tom wants to force people to do business with someone even if they dont want to, for whatever reasons.

    of course he talks about it from his perspective, which is punishing nasty straight people who may not want to marry gays.

    but is Jackboot Tom happy to force the local gay florist to continue to work for the client who is having a straight marriage and wants the arrangement and the speeches etc all to be about how gay marriage is wrong?

    Cant happen? i know of a wedding very recently where during the vows the couple made reference to the ‘tradition’ of marriage -in spite of recent politics. If the caterer was gay (and aren’t they all?) does not want to work for them, should we be able to force them? don’t want to cater for gay people, dont be a caterer says Jackboot Tom.

    this law is supposed to be about removing the right of the state to use force to not allow gay people to get married.

    it should not be adding new state force by forcing anyone to do business or associate with those they don’t want to.

    i share Dimes concern, there will be gay people brought up catholic who will demand their ‘right’ to be married in a catholic church,and will make a big media display of it.

    yes the religions get an exemption, but why should religions get special treatment to choose who they dont work with, when others dont? there is nothing special about religion other than mass group think.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Ed Snack (1,737 comments) says:

    Tom, the reason to avoid blood donated from active homosexuals is the “Eve van Grafhorst” effect. The male homosexual community has, like it or not, a significant incidence of HIV or at least the potential for HIV. The only other identifiable group with a similar or greater risk profile, IV drug abusers, is also excluded from blood donations for the same reasons. Actually, IV abusers are more stigmatized because they also disproportionately are infected with other virii like the various Hepatitis versions as well as HIV.

    So get off your high horse, it’s got nothing to do with homosexuality per se, it’s a public risk issue and based on actual disease incidences and the cost and complication of testing. Unless of course you think that victim politics trumps public safety ?

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    How horrible to have that fag blood in your veins.

    I am straight but can not give blood due to the exotic places I have been, combined with my “friendly & loving” nature ;)

    Should I play the victim card too ?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. scrubone (3,048 comments) says:

    but I would remind them that the Baptist church was born out of the idea of non-conformity. The early Baptists gathered together because they disagreed with aspects of the established church and suffered terribly for their individual beliefs.

    Actually, I would imagine that the Baptist church was born out of the idea of conformity with scripture, and a refusal to conform to any other standard.

    And of course it’s amusing to see someone use the idea of “non conformity” to justify going along with the majority.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. RRM (9,453 comments) says:

    yes the HIV infection rate in gays is many times higher; but many times higher than fuck all is still fuck all.

    In this day and age when all donor blood is screened for HIV, it is probably a bit silly that the blanket ban continues on blood donation by gays while blood banks are all in chronic shortage of most stocks.

    But it would no doubt be painted as militant homosexuals YET AGAIN vexatiously insisting on “rights” that they do not deserve to have, so maybe that is best left for another day….

    On the bright side, at least it spares us from having to actually listen to “I wouldn’t want dirty fag blood in my veins” type arguments from people who probably consider themselves upstanding citizens, so maybe in a way there’s a public health good in it after all?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Scott (1,707 comments) says:

    According to the NZ Herald- http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10874111
    Independent celebrants who conducted nearly half of the 22,000 marriages in New Zealand were not covered by this amendment, and some MPs felt it should be made clear that they too should be able to choose whom they married.

    Despite assurances from the Human Rights Commission that it would not uphold complaints against celebrants, some legal experts felt that complaints might have to be decided by the courts.”

    So if you are an individual celebrant you are most likely not covered by this amendment and have no protection under the law to refuse to marry a gay couple. Your freedom of conscience isn’t worth anything and you can guarantee that gay couples will try it for nuisance value as they have already done in Canada where gay marriage is legal.

    This means as Tom Jackson above has already said you must fall into line with the gay agenda or go out of business as a marriage celebrant. Thanks Tom for putting it so clearly.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Chuck Bird (4,682 comments) says:

    In this day and age when all donor blood is screened for HIV, it is probably a bit silly that the blanket ban continues on blood donation by gays while blood banks are all in chronic shortage of most stocks.

    Thanks for the post RRM. It demonstrates how ill-informed many libertarians are. Can you name one blood service in the civilised would that accepts blood for active homosexuals?

    Over a thousand innocent people died from pandering to homosexual activists.

    Alberta Report
    Bureaucratic serial killers December 08 & 15, 1997
    Krever’s tainted-blood inquiry lays bare in meticulous detail the heavy death toll from political correctness

    In the summer of 1983, Dr. Thomas Bowen, medical director of Calgary’s Red Cross Blood Centre, was ordered by the national Red Cross office not to mark blood donations from people suspected of being gay, intravenous drug users, or otherwise at a high risk of contracting AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome). Nevertheless, for two years Calgary nurses put a black dot on suspect samples so that they were not used for transfusions. Dr. Bowen did not tell the national office this, because senior Red Cross bureaucrats were committed to a policy of “voluntary self-exclusion” and Dr. Bowen did not want to be told to stop doing it.

    Nobody knows how many lives Dr. Bowen saved by this expedient. After testifying at the Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada, Dr. Bowen said that it was just “luck” that he took appropriate steps while the Red Cross did not. But the head of the commission, Justice Horace Krever, disagrees. In his report, released November 26, Mr. Justice Krever maps out with devastating precision exactly how and why the guardians of Canada’s blood supply let thousands of people die unnecessarily through inaction, cowardice, bureaucratic bungling and lies.

    The report details how top Red Cross bureaucrats refused to properly screen donors because they were afraid of offending the gay community and the public; how they publicly insisted that the risk of transmitting AIDS by blood transfusion was “overrated,” while privately acknowledging that contamination of the supply was only a matter of time; how they frittered away an 18-month opportunity between 1983 and 1985 to implement AIDS prevention measures already in place in the U.S.; and how they later distributed blood products to hemophiliacs that they should have known to be contaminated.
    Other factors contributed to the debacle, such as political infighting between the Red Cross and federal and provincial agencies. Neither Ottawa nor the provinces did anything to stop the medical malfeasance, and as a result over 1,100 Canadians got AIDS and over 60,000 were infected with hepatitis C. But the “primary responsibility” for preventing such a catastrophe was in the hands of one entity: the Canadian Red Cross.

    Mr. Justice Krever begins the story in the U.S. In December 1981, the New England Journal of Medicine warned that “a nation-wide epidemic of immunodeficiency among male homosexuals was occurring and that it was beginning to affect drug users. The mortality rate (over 40%) was alarming, and the number of cases was doubling every six months, but epidemiologists were particularly troubled by the association with homosexual males. Because diseases spread more quickly in the gay community, it is sometimes considered a bellwether of impending epidemics. Mr. Justice Krever also notes that gay males were frequent blood donors in those days, believing that it would improve their public image.

    By spring 1982, it was widely acknowledged in America that the new “gay-related immunodeficiency” might be infectious. A July 1982 outbreak of 34 cases among Haitian immigrants frightened officials, who initially thought it to be a new phenomenon; it was later discovered that most of the Haitian men had had sex with gay men visiting from New York. Meanwhile, there were reports of AIDS-like symptoms in the prison population. In the summer of 1982 the Centres for Disease

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. kowtow (7,626 comments) says:

    kea 229 said
    “Attaching different labels to homos will not change my view kowtow.”

    attaching different labels to marriage won’t make it marriage either.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Tom Jackson (2,458 comments) says:

    Tom wants to force people to do business with someone even if they dont want to, for whatever reasons.

    They are public officials granted he power to exercise an authority of the state. It’s their duty as a public official not to discriminate. Nobody has to be a public official if they don’t want to. Priests are a special case, because they are mostly private officials who happen to be allowed to exercise a state power as a part of their ministry.

    A florist is not a public official. We would be getting really gay if they were.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    attaching different labels to marriage won’t make it marriage either.

    If you really believe that, then what are you worried about ?

    Hang onto your beliefs. No problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Tom Jackson (2,458 comments) says:

    Over a thousand innocent people died from pandering to homosexual activists

    Notice the dates on that article?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Grendel (951 comments) says:

    ah, so becuase the state has shoehorned in and decided it can choose who can run a wedding, then they get to choose what that person can and cant do.

    fuck that. a celebrant is as much a private individual as a priest is.

    the marriage part is just the document with the witnesses that is all arranged via the marriage license with the state. the celebrant runs the ceremony. the celebrant is not paid by the state, they are paid by the individuals who they contract with for their ceremony.

    there is no reason to make that person a state official and regardless there is no reason to force that person to do business with whom they do not want to.

    So Jackboot Tom, why should someone be forced to do business with someone they dont wish to?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Chuck Bird (4,682 comments) says:

    “Notice the dates on that article?”

    Of course but the principle is the same. NZ Blood Services screening policy should be determined by NZ Blood Services and the safety of the public should be paramount not the feelings of homosexual activists or their ill-informed supporters.

    Name one country that accepts blood from active homosexuals.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. SHG (363 comments) says:

    Given that we live in a secular liberal democracy, what on earth does religious faith have to do with anything?

    Whenever one of the speakers got to a line like “in the Christian tradition…” or “I was raised in the Christian faith…” they should have been silenced and ejected for introducing irrelevant superstitious twaddle into a serious discussion.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Tom Jackson (2,458 comments) says:

    “the celebrant is not paid by the state”

    Nor is a JP. Nevertheless, both have been authorized by the state to exercise a certain power or powers. It would make no difference if a judge refused to take a salary from the state. He or she would still be a public official exercising state powers on behalf of the state.

    You can’t refuse to marry people because they are black, so you can’t refuse to marry them if they are gay. Organizations that cater for specific religious and other sensibilities are covered by this law, and are exempt. Otherwise, people have to put their personal feelings aside and perform their duties. R

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Tom Jackson (2,458 comments) says:

    Of course but the principle is the same. NZ Blood Services screening policy should be determined by NZ Blood Services and the safety of the public should be paramount not the feelings of homosexual activists or their ill-informed supporters.

    Blood is now screened because we now know a lot more about HIV than we did in 1983 when people knew very little about it.

    It surprises me that we still pander to the “Oh noes! Teh gayzz!!!1!!” brigade on this.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Chuck Bird (4,682 comments) says:

    Blood is now screened because we now know a lot more about HIV than we did in 1983 when people knew very little about it.

    Tom, are you homosexual? If you are it would help prove the theory that homosexuality is a form or mental illness?

    Name one country that accepts blood from hhomosexuals

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    There is a very legitimate reason as to why accepting blood donations from homosexual men is foolish:

    . . . The NZ Aids Foundation and the Aids Epidemiology Group at the University of Otago have conducted biennial surveys, the Auckland Gay Periodic Sex Surveys, for the past decade.

    The result is high levels of sexually transmitted infections amongst gay men. Over 60 per cent of new infectious syphilis cases are gay men. This category also has high rates of gonorrhoea and hepatitis. And 76 per cent of all new HIV diagnoses in 2000-2009 were gay men.

    Risk is far greater without condom protection. Although 98 per cent of those surveyed knew that anal sex without a condom is very high risk for HIV transmission, 73 per cent did not use a condom at least once in the past six months (the figure for casual sex was 31 per cent).

    The 2010 results covered the sexual behaviour of 1527 gay men in 2008. On the commitment side, the survey indicates that the most common number of sexual partners for gay men over the previous six months was two to five. Just 38.8 per cent of those surveyed had a partner of more than six months’ standing (i.e. relationships with some level of commitment).

    However, 52 per cent of these men had also had sex in that period (six months) with other partners. So despite the rhetoric of love and commitment, most male gay couples are not in a genuinely monogamous relationship. Should the meaning of “marriage” be broadened under such circumstances?

    There is also the health issue. Male-to-male coupling typically has far greater health risks (because of high levels of anal sex). Both with casual and with “boyfriend” sex the percentage engaging in anal sex is over 80 per cent. Anal sex is never fully safe. Although condoms reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV/Aids) by around 85-90 per cent, risk remains (because of user misuse or product failure).

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10830082

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Kovac (29 comments) says:

    You don’t need to be marxist to support gay marriage.

    Instead you could be libertarian.

    Afterall, why should marriage and relationships be be dictated by the state?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Manolo (13,368 comments) says:

    Tom, can you answer Chuck?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. eszett (2,336 comments) says:

    Name one country that accepts blood from hhomosexuals

    New Zealand does.
    Homosexual women have no problem giving blood.

    Homosexual men have strict conditions:

    Since March 2009 the criteria has been:

    You must not give blood for FIVE YEARS:
    Following oral or anal sex with or without a condom with another man (if you are male).

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Harriet (4,519 comments) says:

    But…hold on….for the last few hundred years, if you get Married in a government building such as a registry office, or on public property such as a council park or gardens, society has known this as a ‘civil ceremony’!

    This whole gay marriage thingy is becoming a joke and politicians are looking more silly by the day! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Harriet (4,519 comments) says:

    “…Afterall, why should marriage and relationships be be dictated by the state?…”

    Because children and property are involved. Oh, and women too!

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Chuck Bird (4,682 comments) says:

    Very clever eszett but you have proved my point.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. eszett (2,336 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (3,216) Says:
    March 28th, 2013 at 2:20 pm

    My Marriage Pledge

    Tick the statements below that you wish to pledge

    I will not use my electorate vote to vote for an electorate MP who supports changing the definition of marriage.

    I will not use my party vote to vote for a political party whose party leader supports changing the definition of marriage.

    http://www.mymarriagepledge.org.nz/

    ROFTL

    That must be the funniest post it this thread.
    I wonder if it is going to be just as effective as the virginity pledges.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Its not just raving queers who are discriminated against people !!!

    Detailed eligibility criteria
    A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z

    A
    Antibiotics – I am taking antibiotics. Can I donate?
    If antibiotics are taken for the treatment of an existing infection, the condition must be fully resolved and the antibiotics completed 1 week before donating.

    In cases where an antibiotic is being taken in the absence of existing infection, a donation may be collected for restricted use as long as the donor is well. If in doubt, call your local Donor Centre or 0800 GIVE BLOOD (0800 448 325) and speak to our Donor Staff.

    back to top

    Accidents – I was involved in an accident and had stitches or other treatment. Can I donate?
    After minor injuries we ask donors to wait one month from recovery. After moderate or severe injuries the waiting time is 3 or 6 months, respectively. If you received a blood transfusion it will be necessary to wait 12 months.

    back to top

    Acne – I have active acne. Can I donate?
    If you have active or infected acne it will be necessary to wait until it has settled or been treated effectively. If treated with Isotretinoin (Roaccutane), Tretinoin (Retin A) or Adapalene (Differin), you will need to wait 4 weeks from your last dose. If you are being treated with antibiotics you will need to wait one week from completing treatment, but may be able to give plasma-only donations (call your local Donor Centre or 0800 GIVE BLOOD (0800 448 325) and speak to our Donor Staff).

    back to top

    Acupuncture – I have just had acupuncture. Can I donate?
    Yes, 12 hours or more after the treatment, as long as only sterile single-use (disposable) equipment was used, there is no inflammation present at the site, and the treatment was provided by one of the following:

    staff in a hospital, or a doctor, or
    an acupuncturist who provided you with a certificate confirming that sterile disposable needles were used, or
    an acupuncturist who is listed on an NZ Blood Service approved register of acupuncturists.
    If sterile single-use (disposable) equipment was not used, or you are unsure if it was used; or the treatment was given by a person who is not listed above, you will not be able to donate for 6 months after the last acupuncture procedure.

    back to top

    Addiction – drugs. Can I donate if I have ever injected or taken drugs?
    If you have injected drugs that were not prescribed by a doctor or inhaled (snorted) cocaine or other drugs you cannot give blood now or at any time in the future.

    Any person who is under the influence of drugs or alcohol cannot donate blood because the drug may affect ability to understand and answer the donor questionnaire and declaration, and to tolerate 470mL blood withdrawal.

    If you have any other question concerning drugs, please call your local Donor Centre or 0800 GIVE BLOOD (0800 448 325) and speak to our Donor Staff.

    back to top

    Age – How does age affect my ability to donate?
    Whole blood donors (regular donors)

    New donors can start donating blood from their 16th birthday up to their 66th birthday.

    NZ Blood Service asks people aged 16-17 to check with your parent/guardian before starting to donate blood.

    Existing whole blood donors can continue donating blood up to their 71st birthday.

    If you wish to continue donating blood after your 71st birthday, your health will be assessed annually by an NZBS Medical Officer.

    Whole blood donors are required to retire when they turn 76.

    Apheresis donors (plasma or platelet donors)

    Apheresis is a special collection procedure in which blood is processed in a cell separator machine. Some components are separated as the ‘donation’ and others are returned to the donor. The donor’s blood only comes into contact with sterile single use disposable materials. In NZ apheresis involves collecting either plasma (the liquid part of blood) or platelets plus some plasma.

    Provided they meet apheresis donor selection criteria and have given at least one whole blood donation in the last two years, existing whole blood donors are eligible to start donating by apheresis from their 18th to their 61st birthday.

    Existing apheresis donors can continue to donate by apheresis up to their 66th birthday.

    back to top

    Alcohol – I had several alcoholic drinks before going to give blood. Can I donate?
    The NZ Blood Service does not take blood from anyone under the influence of alcohol because intoxication can affect ability to understand and answer the donor questionnaire and declaration, and to tolerate 470mL blood withdrawal.

    back to top

    Allergy – I am allergic to one of the following: dust / a food / a medicine / an insect sting / other. Can I donate?
    If you have mild hay fever or other mild allergy to a food or environmental substance, you may donate. Taking a medicine to control symptoms will not affect your ability to donate.

    If you have moderate symptoms from an acute allergic reaction at present, you will need to wait until symptoms have settled and a further deferral of between one week – one month may be necessary. Please call you your local Donor Centre or 0800 GIVE BLOOD (0800 448 325) and discuss with our Donor Staff.

    A moderately severe allergic reaction in the past will require you to wait for one year from the last event. After a moderate allergic reaction to a medicine you will need to wait for one year before donating.

    After a severe allergic reaction or anaphylaxis you will not be able to donate for a minimum of ten years.

    back to top

    Anaemia – I have been anaemic. Can I donate?
    If the anaemia has been treated effectively and the finger prick test carried out before giving blood shows that your haemoglobin is in the acceptable range, you will be able to donate.

    If you are having medical investigations for anaemia or receiving treatment for anaemia, it will be necessary to wait until both investigations and treatment are completed, and possibly for a further six month period.

    Presence of persistent anaemia and some specific types of anaemia, such as pernicious anaemia, may results in permanent deferral from giving blood.

    back to top

    Angioplasty – I have had an angioplasty. Can I donate?
    Although your previous symptoms which required an angioplasty may have settled, it is not possible for you to give blood in the future as you may not be able to tolerate 470mL blood withdrawal.

    back to top

    Antibiotics – I am taking antibiotics. Can I donate?
    If antibiotics are taken for the treatment of an existing infection, the condition must be fully resolved and the antibiotics completed 1 week before donating.

    In cases where an antibiotic is being taken in the absence of existing infection, a donation may be collected for restricted use as long as the donor is well. If in doubt, call your local Donor Centre or 0800 GIVE BLOOD (0800 448 325) and speak to our Donor Staff.

    back to top

    Antidepressants – I take an antidepressant. Can I donate?
    Taking an antidepressant is generally not a cause for deferral as long as you are physically well. However, if you are taking a high dose we may need to check your eligibility to donate. Please call your local Donor Centre or 0800 GIVE BLOOD (0800 448 325) to speak to our Donor Staff.

    back to top

    Arrhythmia – I have abnormal heart beats or I am being treated for an abnormal heart beat. Can I donate?
    If you have had abnormal heart beats, the Blood Service Medical Officer will review your condition.

    If your condition requires ongoing treatment it will not be possible for you to give blood donations.

    back to top

    Arthritis – I have arthritis. Can I donate?
    Osteoarthritis that is under good control will not affect your ability to give blood donations. If symptoms are severe you may be asked to wait for three months.

    If your diagnosis is Rheumatoid Arthritis that is active or requires treatment you will not be able to give blood donations.

    back to top

    Asthma – I have asthma. Can I donate?
    If you have mild asthma and require only occasional use of inhalers, or you are on a regular preventative treatment programme with inhalers and do not have active symptoms at the time, you can donate.

    If you have active symptoms you will need to wait one month before donating.

    If you have severe asthma it will not be possible for you to donate blood.

    back to top

    B
    Bleeding disorder – I have been diagnosed with a bleeding condition/disorder. Can I donate?
    Our Medical Officer will review your condition. Most bleeding disorders will result in permanent deferral from giving blood donations.

    back to top

    Blood borne diseases – what is tested for?
    Hepatitis B and C, syphillis, HIV (AIDS) on all donations.

    back to top

    Blood pressure – I take high blood pressure medicine. Can I donate?
    Medicines for the control of blood pressure are acceptable, providing your blood pressure is adequately controlled and stable, and you have not had low blood pressure when standing.

    If you are taking a beta blocker medicine you will not be able to give a donation until you have been taking the medicine for 4 weeks without any problems, your pulse is over 60/minute and your blood pressure is in the range 100-160/(70 or higher). We will check these before you donate.

    back to top

    Blood transfusion – I have had a blood transfusion. Can I donate?
    If you have had a blood transfusion, the waiting period before you can give blood is 12 months. If you received only autologous blood (that is, you donated prior to a procedure and were transfused with your only own blood), then you are able to continue donating with a letter from your doctor verifying that the only blood transfused was your own blood.

    If you had a blood transfusion in the UK, Ireland or France since 1980 then you are permanently deferred from donating.

    back to top

    Blood volume – What is the volume of blood in a person’s body?
    It varies little according to weight and sex, but for a 70kg person it is about 5 litres, or 10 pints (70mL per kilo body weight).

    back to top

    Body piercing – I have just had a part of my body pierced. Can I donate?
    If you have just had your ears or any other part of your body pierced and this was performed with clean, single use (disposable) equipment by a registered health professional (e.g. a Pharmacist, GP, Dentist, etc.) and any inflammation has settled completely, you can donate blood now. If the piercing was performed by any other person you will need to wait for 6 months.

    back to top

    Breast-feeding – I am breast-feeding. Can I donate?
    It is not advisable to donate blood while breast-feeding. Following childbirth, the deferral period is at least 9 months (as for pregnancy) and until 3 months after your baby is significantly weaned (i.e. getting most of his/her nutrition from solids or bottle feeding).

    back to top

    C
    Cancer – I had cancer. Can I donate?
    A person who has had an adequately treated skin cancer (squamous cell cancer or basal cell cancer) and has no recurrence of the cancer, can donate.

    If you have a solid tumour (not leukaemia or lymphoma) which has been successfully treated and proved to be clear of disease for at least five years – you may donate.

    A person who has had cervical cancer-in-situ may give blood and apheresis donations.

    Please call your local Donor Centre or 0800 GIVE BLOOD (0800 448 325) and ask to speak to our Donor Staff if you have any queries about eligibility.

    back to top

    Chicken pox – I have chicken pox. Can I donate?
    You can donate 4 weeks after a complete and full recovery.

    When all your spots are completely clean and dry, NZ Blood Service may be able to use your plasma to provide valuable antibodies to treat people at risk of infection from chicken pox. If you live near one of our main Donor Centres, please tell us about your chicken pox infection as soon as possible as we may wish to arrange special tests to check your chicken pox antibody level. Please call your local Donor Centre or 0800 GIVE BLOOD (0800 448 325) and speak to our Donor Staff.

    back to top

    Childbirth – How long after the birth of my baby. Can I donate?
    At least 9 months after the birth, but if you are still breast-feeding at this time, you will need to wait until 3 months after your baby is significantly weaned. See also breast-feeding.

    back to top

    Cholecystectomy – I have had my gall bladder removed. Can I donate?
    You must be fully recovered from the surgery. You will need to wait a minimum of three months after a laparoscopic procedure or six months after an open surgery procedure.

    back to top

    Cholecystitis – I have had cholecystitis recently. Can I donate?
    You will need to wait for 4 weeks from complete recovery and after completing antibiotic treatment.

    back to top

    Cholesterol – I take medication for cholesterol reduction. Can I donate?
    Cholesterol-lowering medication prescribed to prevent coronary artery disease does not affect your eligibility to donate. However, people who have angina or other symptoms of existing coronary artery disease must not donate blood for personal safety reasons.

    back to top

    Chronic fatigue syndrome – I have/had chronic fatigue syndrome. Can I donate?
    People with a diagnosis of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome are permanently deferred from donating blood in New Zealand.

    back to top

    Coeliac disease – I have coeliac disease. Can I donate?
    If your condition is treated by diet alone and you are well, you may give blood donations. If you require other medical treatment this will be discussed with our Medical Officer but is likely to lead to permanent deferral from giving blood.

    back to top

    Cold sores – Can I donate if I have a cold sore?
    You cannot donate if the cold sore is still active, but once it is clean and dry, or healed, you can donate blood.

    back to top

    Colds- I have a cold. Can I donate?
    For your safety and for the safety of the people who receive your blood, you should not donate until 1 week after you are fully recovered and feeling fit and well.

    back to top

    Concussion – I was knocked unconscious. Can I donate?
    We will need to discuss the circumstances of the accident with you. In general, if you are fully recovered, have been discharged from medical follow up and are off all medicines, you will be able to give blood donations. If you have not fully recovered, we recommend waiting three months from full recovery.

    back to top

    Condoms – What if I use condoms every time?
    Condoms reduce the risk, but there is always a very small risk, if the condom breaks or is not used properly, of transmission.
    The relative risk of HIV transmission is much higher with a transfusion of infected blood than with sexual intercourse with an infected partner.
    This justifies a more stringent approach to risk reduction for transfusion.

    back to top

    Conjunctivitis – I have conjunctivitis. Can I donate?
    If the conjunctivitis is due to an allergy – see Allergy above.

    If conjunctivitis is due to infection. You will need to wait for one week after the condition is fully settled and you are off antibiotics.

    back to top

    Contraceptive pill – I take birth control pills. Can I donate?
    Yes. Taking birth control pills (oral contraceptives) has no effect on your ability to donate blood and the action of the contraceptive pill is not affected.

    back to top

    Corneal Graft – corneal transplant – I have had a corneal transplant. Can I donate?
    After receiving a corneal transplant it is not possible to give blood donations. This requirement exists as rare cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease have occurred overseas after corneal grafting.

    back to top

    Correctional institutions – Why doesn’t the NZ Blood Service collect blood from inmates of correctional institutions?
    The reason for this restriction is that the risk of getting hepatitis B and hepatitis C infections is much higher in the prison populations compared to the general community.

    back to top

    Crohn’s Disease – I have crohn’s disease. Can I donate?
    It will not be possible for you to give blood donations if you have Crohn’s Disease. The cause of this condition is not yet certain and giving blood may adversely affect your health.

    back to top

    Cystitis – I have had cystitis recently. Can I donate?
    We will ask you to wait for one week from full recovery and after your last dose of antibiotic treatment.

    back to top

    Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection – I have been diagnosed with cytomegalovirus infection. Can I donate?
    After cytomegalovirus infection we will ask you to wait for six months from full recovery before donating blood. If you have any other underlying health problem which caused more severe cytomegalovirus infection than usual, this may affect whether or not you can give blood donations again.

    back to top

    D
    Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) – I have had a deep vein thrombosis in a leg. Can I donate?
    If the DVT occurred as an isolated episode we will ask you to wait for three months until completely recovered and off all anticoagulant treatment.

    If you have had repeat episodes of DVT, it will not be possible for you to give blood.

    back to top

    Dengue fever – I had dengue fever. Can I donate?
    You can donate blood 4 weeks after recovery from dengue fever.

    back to top

    Dental treatment – I have just been to the dentist. Can I donate?
    After treatments such as cleaning, fillings and braces, we can collect a donation on the next day.
    For uncomplicated extractions it will be necessary to put off donating for 1 week and after complex surgery for 1 month.

    Please call your local Donor Centre or 0800 GIVE BLOOD (0800 448 325) and speak to our Donor Staff about limitations that apply for other treatments.

    back to top

    Depression – I am being treated for depression. Can I donate?
    Many people with mild or stable depression on treatment will be able to give blood donations. If the depression is more severe, we will ask you to wait for six months before donating.

    If you are taking Lithium or are moderately or severely unwell with depression we will not be able to collect blood donations. Depression symptoms that are under good control with other medication will not prevent you donating blood.

    back to top

    Dermatitis – I have dermatitis. Can I donate?
    We will ask about your medical history to obtain more information about your condition. If the area affected is small and is being treated with only an ointment or a cream, and the venepuncture site at the elbow is not affected, you will be able to give blood. Otherwise we may ask you to wait until the condition is settled.

    back to top

    Diabetes – I am diabetic. Can I donate?
    If you have no complications from your diabetes such as eye, blood vessel related or kidney problems and your diabetes is well controlled through diet or oral medication, you will be able to donate.

    If you require insulin to control your diabetes you will not be able to donate.

    back to top

    Diarrhoea – I have diarrhoea. Can I donate?
    If you have had one of the following infections you will not be able to donate whole blood for 12 weeks from full recovery: Yersinia, Campylobacter, Salmonella, Shigella. However, we may be able to use plasma (the liquid in blood) but not the red cells from your whole blood donation, during the 12 week period.

    If the cause of the diarrhoea has not been identified and it lasted for –

    less than 24 hours, you will be able to donate after 1 week if you remain in good health through that period,
    24 hours or longer, you will be able to donate after 4 weeks if you remain in good health through that period.
    Contacts: If someone in your household or a close social contact has had diarrhoea:

    A donation can be used to provide plasma one week after your last contact with any person who has diarrhoea. We will not be able to use the red cells from your donation for 4 weeks.
    If you have any queries about your symptoms and eligibility please call your local Donor Centre or 0800 GIVE BLOOD (0800 448 325) and speak to our Donor Staff.

    back to top

    Disability – I have a physical disability. Can I donate?
    Donors must be able to climb onto the donation beds and be able to straighten out the elbow fully so that a blood donation can be collected. We will also need to discuss the underlying cause of your disability as this may affect your ability to donate if due to some medical conditions.

    Please call your local Donor Centre or 0800 GIVE BLOOD (0800 448 325) and speak to our Donor Staff.

    back to top

    Diverticulitis/diverticulosis – I have diverticulitis or diverticulosis. Can I donate?
    If you are well and have had no recent symptoms of the condition you may donate. If you have symptoms it will be necessary to wait for a minimum of one month after the symptoms have settled before donating.

    back to top

    Drug use (recreational) – Can I still donate blood even if I have taken recreational drugs?
    This will depend on what drug was taken and how and when it was taken. If you have ever used intravenous (IV or injected) drugs not prescribed by a registered medical practitioner, even once, you will not be able to give a blood donation and you will be permanently deferred.

    If you have inhaled (snorted) drugs through a straw you will not be able to give a blood donation, at any time.

    Any person who is intoxicated with a drug or alcohol will not be able to donate as intoxication can affect the ability to understand and answer the donor questionnaire and declaration, and to tolerate 470mL blood withdrawal.

    NZ Blood Service values the privacy of donors. All interviews are conducted in private and donor confidentiality is always maintained.

    Please call your local Donor Centre or 0800 GIVE BLOOD (0800 448 325) and speak to our Donor Staff if more information is needed.

    back to top

    E
    Ear piercing – I have just had my ears pierced. Can I still donate blood?
    If you have just had your ears or any other part of your body pierced and this was performed with clean, single use (disposable) equipment by a registered health professional (e.g. a Pharmacist, GP, Dentist, etc) and any inflammation has settled completely, you can donate blood now. If the piercing was performed by any other person you will need to wait for 6 months.

    back to top

    Eczema – I have eczema. Can I donate?
    If the affected area is small and the venepuncture site at the front of the elbow is not affected and only an ointment or cream treatment is used, you will be able to donate. We will need to discuss your medical condition to confirm the diagnosis.

    If you have severe eczema our Medical Officer will need to review your condition.

    back to top

    Endometriosis – I have endometriosis. Can I donate?
    If the endometriosis has settled and you have no symptoms you may donate. This applies if you are on hormone replacement treatment to control endometriosis.

    If you have been treated with Danazol we will ask you to wait for three months before donating. Our Medical Officer will also review your condition.

    back to top

    Epilepsy – I have/had had epilepsy. Can I donate?
    If you have had no fits for five years, even if on medication, you may be able to donate. Staff will need to discuss your condition with you. If you have had fits in the past three years you will not be able to donate.

    back to top

    Eye drops – I am using eye drop medicines. Can I donate?
    If you are taking a beta blocker medicine to treat glaucoma and have been taking this treatment for 4 weeks without any adverse symptoms, and your blood pressure is satisfactory, you will be able to donate. Our staff will need to review your condition.

    If you are receiving antibiotics for an infection we will ask you to wait until seven days after the infection has settled and the antibiotic treatment completed.

    If you are using other medicine eye drops, including for allergy, you may donate.

    back to top

    F
    Fibromyalgia – I have been diagnosed with fibromyalgia. Can I donate?
    Because the term fibromyalgia describes a variety of conditions you should call your local Donor Centre or 0800 Give Blood (0800 448 325) and ask to speak to our Staff to discuss your condition.

    back to top

    Food poisoning – see diarrhoea
    If you have had one of the following infections you will not be able to donate whole blood for 12 weeks from full recovery: Yersinia, Campylobacter, Salmonella, Shigella. However, we may be able to use plasma (the liquid in blood) but not the red cells from your whole blood donation, during the 12 week period.

    If the cause of the diarrhoea has not been identified and it lasted for:

    less than 24 hours, you will be able to donate after 1 week if you remain in good health through that period,
    24 hours or longer, you will be able to donate after 4 weeks if you remain in good health through that period.
    Contacts: If someone in your household or a close social contact has had diarrhoea:

    A donation can be used to provide plasma one week after your last contact with any person who has diarrhoea. We will not be able to use the red cells from your donation for 4 weeks,
    If you have any queries about your symptoms and eligibility please call your local Donor Centre or 0800 GIVE BLOOD (0800 448 325) and speak to our Donor Staff.

    back to top

    Fractures – I have been treated for a fracture recently. Can I donate?
    If the fracture was minor we will ask you to wait one month before donating. If you had a moderate or severe fracture involving limb or other bones, we will ask you to wait for 3-6 months depending on the nature of the injury. If you have been discharged from follow up you will usually be able to donate. Please call your local Donor Centre or 0800 Give Blood (0800 448 325) for further information.

    If you received a blood transfusion you will need to wait for twelve months.

    back to top

    Fungal infection – I have a fungal infection in my skin (foot or elsewhere). Can I donate?
    If the infection is being treated with a topical ointment or cream and there is no local inflammation you will be able to donate. If you are taking tablets for treatment we will ask you to wait until seven days after completing the treatment.

    back to top

    G
    Gall bladder
    Gall bladder – see cholecystitis / cholecystectomy

    back to top

    German measles – see rubella infection
    We will ask you to wait 4 weeks from full recovery from this infection as a clearance of the virus is known to be delayed.

    If you have had had contact with a person with rubella and have had rubella previously there is no waiting period before giving blood. If you have had contact with rubella but have not had previously had this infection, we will ask you to wait 4 weeks until the infection incubation period has elapsed.

    If you have had rubella vaccination you must wait 8 weeks from the date of vaccination before donating to ensure the vaccine virus has been fully cleared.

    back to top

    Gilbert’s disease – I have been told I have gilbert’s disease. Can I donate?
    Gilbert’s disease is a minor variation of normal that results in an increased level of bilirubin in blood. This condition does not affect giving blood donations.

    back to top

    Glandular fever – I have (or have had) glandular fever (also called infectious mononucleosis). Can I donate?
    Glandular fever is caused by Epstein-Barr virus (EBV). You will not be able to donate for 6 months after you have recovered from glandular fever.

    back to top

    Glaucoma – see eye drops
    If you are taking a beta blocker medicine to treat glaucoma and have been taking this treatment for 4 weeks without any adverse symptoms, and your blood pressure is satisfactory, you will be able to donate. Our staff will need to review your condition.

    back to top

    Gonorrhoea
    Gonorrhoea – see Sexually Transmitted Infection

    back to top

    Gout – I have had attacks of gout. Can I donate?
    If you are mildly affected and/or are on tablets for treatment, you may donate.

    If you have an acute attack of gout or acute attacks are frequent, we will ask you to wait 2 weeks before donating.

    back to top

    H
    Haemachromatosis – I have haemachromatosis (iron overload disease). Can I donate?
    Our Medical Officer will need to review your condition. You may be able to donate and if so, will be able to give frequent donations at 1-4 week intervals to bring your iron overload under control.

    Please discuss with our Medical Officer. You should obtain a referral note from your General Practitioner that provides information about the diagnosis, liver function tests and your current iron status, to assist the review.

    back to top

    Haemorrhoids – see piles/haemorrhoids
    If your piles / haemorrhoids are not causing symptoms or produce symptoms infrequently, you may donate. If regular or severe bleeding is present, we ask you to wait for one month after the last episode.

    back to top

    Hay fever – I have hay fever – either persistently or just at some times of the year. Can I donate?
    If your hay fever symptoms are mild, with or without regular treatment, you may donate. If you have moderate or severe symptoms we will ask you to wait until one month after the symptoms have settled or been brought under control.

    back to top

    Hazardous occupations – I am an aircraft or glider pilot / bus or train driver / crane operator / fireman / air traffic controller / police driver / diver, or involved with climbing ladders or scaffolding. Can I donate?
    If you are involved with any of the activities listed above, we will ask you to not donate if on duty or within one day of going on duty, or taking part in the activity. In the case of commercial pilots we recommend 7 days before going on duty.

    back to top

    Heart attack – I had a heart attack but I am doing well now. Can I donate?
    To protect your health and safety, the NZ Blood Service is unable to accept you as a blood donor now, or in the future.

    back to top

    Hepatitis – I had hepatitis. Can I donate?
    Hepatitis means inflammation of the liver. It can be caused by infection (such as the viruses hepatitis A, B or C), or by an unknown cause. You cannot donate until 12 months after full recovery.

    Hepatitis – my friend or family member has had hepatitis. Can I donate?
    This will depend on the type of hepatitis. Please call your local Donor Centre or 0800 GIVE BLOOD (0800 448 325) and speak to our Donor Staff if you need more information.

    Hepatitis – my partner has had hepatitis. Can I donate?
    You can donate 12 months after your last sexual contact with a person who has hepatitis, or 12 months after the person has fully recovered.

    back to top

    Herpes – I have genital herpes. Can I donate?
    Yes, provided you are not currently suffering an episode with sores. Any recent sores must be clean and dry.

    You may donate between episodes.

    back to top

    Homosexual men – can homosexual men donate blood in New Zealand?
    Deferrals for sexual behaviour are based on what you do or have done and not on sexual orientation. An independent expert review of the NZBS behavioural donor criteria in 2008 recommended a change to the donor acceptance criteria. Since March 2009 the criteria has been:

    You must not give blood for FIVE YEARS:

    Following oral or anal sex with or without a condom with another man (if you are male).

    back to top

    Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) – I am taking hormone replacement therapy. Can I donate?
    If you are taking hormone replacement therapy for menopausal symptoms you may donate.

    If you are taking hormone replacement therapy for any other reason you will need to discuss the condition with our Staff. Please call your local Donor Centre or 0800 GIVE BLOOD (0800 448 325) and speak to our Donor Staff if you need more information.

    back to top

    How long – does it take to replace a unit of blood (470mls)?
    It takes just 24 – 28 hours to replace the volume, but approximately 6 weeks to replace the red blood cells.

    back to top

    How long – does the donated blood last?
    The red cell component can be kept chilled just for 35 days; plasma can be stored for up to 2 years if frozen; platelets last just 5 days and must be ‘rocked’ constantly to keep them alive.

    back to top

    How much blood do they take?
    A single unit of blood is about 470mL, that’s about 8% of your total blood. The body manufactures blood constantly and will soon replace the donated blood without any ill effects.

    back to top

    How much blood is needed in New Zealand?
    Every week, we need to collect approx 3,000 whole blood donations to meet the needs of hospital patients and users of blood products throughout New Zealand. That’s around 147,000 whole blood units each year.

    back to top

    How often can I donate blood?
    Donors may donate whole blood up to four times a year with a gap of at least 12 weeks in between donations.

    Apheresis donors may donate plasma or platelets every two weeks to a maximum of 23 times per year.

    back to top

    HTLV – What does HTLV stand for?
    Human T Cell Lymphotrophic Virus.

    This virus is rare in NZ but more common in some overseas countries. It can infect some white blood cells and other tissues. The virus sometimes causes a leukaemia or serious deterioration of the spinal cord. A test for this virus infection is carried out on new donors as a precautionary step.

    back to top

    Hypoglycaemia – I have been told I am hypoglycaemic can I donate?
    Hypoglycaemia means ‘low blood sugar’. There are many reasons for low blood sugar and an important one is from treatment of diabetes. If you have symptoms of hypoglycaemia that is not related to diabetes or other serious illness, you can donate provided that you have eaten properly within 2 hours prior to donating. As with all donors, you should also drink plenty of fluids both before and after donation.

    back to top

    I
    Infection – I have an infection. Can I donate?
    You will need to discuss the infection with our Staff. For most infections acquired in the community we will ask you to wait until 7 days after full recovery and after stopping antibiotic treatment, if used.

    In the case of some infections we will ask you to wait for longer, e.g. rubella 4 weeks, and after cytomegalovirus (CMV) or glandular fever (EBV), we will ask you to wait for 6 months.

    Chronic virus infections such as chronic hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV will prevent you from giving blood. If in doubt, please discuss with our Staff.

    back to top

    Iron – Can I donate if I take iron tablets or health supplements?
    If a person has low iron levels in the body it is not appropriate for them to donate blood. If iron tablets have been prescribed by your doctor, you will be referred to the medical officer for a decision on when you can next give blood.

    See also Anaemia.

    Vitamin tablets taken as a dietary supplement are OK.

    back to top

    Irritable bowel syndrome – I have irritable bowel syndrome. Can I donate?
    If you are well at present and have had no symptoms in the past month you may donate.

    Our Staff will discuss whether or not you may have ulcerative colitis or other inflammatory bowel disease such as Crohn’s Disease.

    back to top

    L
    Leukaemia or lymphoma – I had leukaemia or lymphoma. Can I donate?
    No, people with a history of leukaemia or lymphoma are permanently unable to donate blood.

    back to top

    Liposuction – I have had liposuction. Can I donate?
    We will ask you wait for one month after liposuction and full recovery, before donating.

    back to top

    Lived in the UK – can I donate blood if I have lived in the UK, France or the Republic of Ireland?
    If you lived in the UK, France or the Republic of Ireland for a total of six months or more between 1980 and 1996 then unfortunately you will be permanently deferred from donating blood in New Zealand.

    This is because of CJD and vCJD – the human form of “mad cow disease”. We simply do not know enough about these conditions and how they are spread. At present there are no tests available to detect these conditions in blood donations. As a result, New Zealand and many other countries have introduced this criteria. People who have visited or lived for 6 months or more between 1980 and 1996 in the UK, France or the Republic of Ireland where there may be an increased risk of acquiring vCJD may not give blood donations. The same applies to people who have received transfusions in these countries since 1980.

    back to top

    Liver function – I have been told by the NZ Blood Service in the past that my ALT (liver function test) was too high for me to donate. If my ALT is back to normal, am I OK to donate?
    Our current guidelines state that as long as your doctor has excluded any important ongoing liver disease we can accept you back as a blood donor. Please call your local Donor Centre or 0800 GIVE BLOOD (0800 448 325) and ask to speak to our Staff if you need more information.

    back to top

    Lyme disease – I have had lyme disease. Can I donate?
    Lyme disease is caused by bites of certain species of ticks. You are eligible to donate 6 months after you have recovered fully and are certified fit by your doctor.

    back to top

    M
    Medications – What prescribed medications will defer someone from donating?
    Most prescribed medicines do not defer someone from donating, however, the underlying condition for which the medicine has been prescribed may affect eligibility to donate. Some medicines that must not be given to pregnant women and new-born babies, for example Roaccutane (for the treatment of acne) and Neotigason (for the treatment of psoriasis) and Acetretin (for acne or psoriasis). If you are taking any of these medications you will be deferred whilst taking the medication and for a certain time afterwards to ensure it does not remain in your blood.

    Please call your local Donor Centre or 0800 GIVE BLOOD (0800 448) if you have any queries about medications.

    If any medicine you are taking is not listed here, please check under the name of the condition being treated. If still uncertain please speak to a nurse at one of our blood donor centres.

    back to top

    Menstruation – I am having my period. Can I donate?
    Menstruation does not affect the ability of most women to donate.

    back to top

    Miscarriage or stillbirth – I have had a miscarriage. Can I donate?
    After having had a miscarriage or termination of pregnancy, we will ask you to wait for a period related to the duration of the pregnancy. The interval is determined from the likely iron loss associated with the pregnancy.

    Up to 12 weeks of pregnancy – wait 3 months
    Between 12-24 weeks – wait 6 months.
    Occurring after 24 weeks – wait 9 months
    back to top

    Multiple sclerosis – I have multiple sclerosis (MS). Can I donate?
    No. To protect your health and safety, and because the nature of this condition is still uncertain, NZ Blood Service is unable to accept you as a blood donor.

    back to top

    O
    Occupation risk
    Occupation risk – see Hazardous occupation

    back to top

    Operations
    Operations – see surgery

    back to top

    Osteoporosis – I have had a bone density scan confirming I have osteoporosis. Can I donate?
    If you have been diagnosed as having osteoporosis you will only be eligible to donate whole blood or plasma by apheresis. Currently there are unresolved concerns surrounding the collection of platelets by apheresis and the effect on bone density of people with osteoporosis. As a precautionary measure (to ensure your health), you will be unable to donate platelets by apheresis. If you have more queries, please call your local Donor Centre or 0800 GIVE BLOOD (0800 448 325) and speak to our Donor Staff.

    back to top

    P
    Pain – I don’t like needles – it must hurt?
    The finger prick, during the preliminary interview process is usually the only discomfort encountered by a blood donor.

    Most donors don’t mind the slight discomfort – after all it saves lives.

    back to top

    Parkinson’s Disease – I have Parkinson’s disease. Can I donate?
    If symptoms are minimal you will be able to donate. If symptoms are more than minimal you will not be able to give blood donations. This requirement exists because of the stiffness and mobility problems that develop with Parkinson’s Disease and affect collection of blood donations or may create a risk after giving blood.

    back to top

    Payment – Does the NZ Blood Service pay donors for donations?
    No. The NZ Blood Service receives only voluntary donations of blood. This is in keeping with international World Health Organisation and Red Cross policy that encourages the concept of voluntary non-remunerated blood donation to support a safe blood supply.

    back to top

    Piercings – ears and other parts of the body: I have just had a piercing. Can I donate?
    If you have just had your ears or any other part of your body pierced and this was performed with clean, single use (disposable) equipment by a registered health professional (e.g. a Pharmacist, GP, Dentist, etc) and any inflammation has settled completely, you can donate blood now. If the piercing was performed by any other person you will need to wait for 6 months.

    back to top

    Piles /haemorrhoids – I have piles / haemorrhoids. Can I donate?
    If your piles / haemorrhoids are not causing symptoms or produce symptoms infrequently, you may donate. If regular or severe bleeding is present, we ask you to wait for one month after the last episode.

    back to top

    Plasma – What is it used for?
    Plasma is the yellow liquid portion of blood, containing mainly water and proteins. Plasma is used to replace the proteins if there is a deficiency. Some of these proteins make our blood clot, some protect us from infection. Proteins also help to keep the fluid in our blood vessels.

    back to top

    Platelets – What are they used for?
    Platelets help to stop bleeding by plugging the wound and are used to treat patients with low platelets and bleeding.

    back to top

    Pneumonia – I have had pneumonia recently. When can I donate?
    If you are fully recovered and no underlying medical or related condition caused the pneumonia, we will ask you to wait until 3 months after full recovery and completion of antibiotic treatment.

    If you have any other underlying medical condition, this will need to be discussed with our Medical Officer.

    back to top

    Pneumothorax – I have had a pneumothorax. Can I donate?
    If the pneumothorax was spontaneous and not due to emphysema, you will be able to donate after full recovery. If you had a traumatic pneumothorax and do not have emphysema, you will be able to donate 3 months after the injury and complete recovery.

    If you have a pneumothorax and emphysema it will not be possible for to give blood donations again.

    back to top

    Polycythaemia (rubra) vera – I have polycythaemia (rubra) vera. Can I donate?
    Polycythaemia (rubra) vera is a disease of the bone marrow causing over-production of red blood cells. One of the treatments for this condition is regular removal of blood (venesection) and your doctor may have even referred you to the NZ Blood Service for venesection. Due to the underlying condition affecting your bone marrow, your donation cannot be used for transfusion.

    back to top

    Pregnancy – I am pregnant. Can I donate?
    Blood donations are not collected from a pregnant woman to avoid any stresses on the mother’s or baby’s circulation, or on the mother’s iron levels. After childbirth a woman should wait for a further 9 months to allow adequate time for iron stores to be built up. This is extended if a woman is breastfeeding. See also breast-feeding.

    back to top

    Psoriasis – I have psoriasis. Can I donate?
    If the psoriasis is mild and you are not taking any tablet treatment, and the condition does not affect the front of the elbow at the site used to insert the blood collection needle, you will be able to give blood. If you have more severe or generalised psoriasis or are taking oral medicines to treat the condition, we will ask you to wait for one month after treatment is completed and symptoms reduced to a mild level. In the case of some medicines, a longer waiting period may be required – see Medications.

    back to top

    R
    Red blood cells – what are they used for?
    Red cells contain haemoglobin that carries oxygen through the body. They are transfused to patients who are very anaemic or have lost a large amount of blood following an accident or during surgery.

    back to top

    Rheumatoid arthritis – I have been diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis – see arthritis
    If your diagnosis is Rheumatoid Arthritis and it is being treated only with medicines called “Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agent” or aspirin you will be able to give blood donations. If you are being treated with steroids and other medicines you will not be able to give blood donations again.

    back to top

    Rubella infection – I have recently had rubella. When can I donate?
    We will ask you to wait 4 weeks from full recovery from this infection as a clearance of the virus is known to be delayed.

    If you have had had contact with a person with rubella and have had rubella previously there is no waiting period before giving blood. If you have had contact with rubella but have not had previously had this infection, we will ask you to wait 4 weeks until the infection incubation period has elapsed.

    If you have had rubella vaccination you must wait 8 weeks from the date of vaccination before donating to ensure the vaccine virus has been fully cleared.

    back to top

    S
    Safety – I’m afraid of getting a disease like AIDS from donating…
    Each needle used during the blood donation process is sterile and used only once and is disposed of in a specially marked biohazard container immediately following the donation. No one has ever contracted HIV or any infectious disease from donating blood.

    back to top

    Sexual activity – Is there any kind of sexual activity that will affect my ability to donate blood?
    If you have any reason to believe you may have acquired an infection through unprotected sex, you should not donate. NZ Blood Service relies on donors giving accurate information about their health and other important issues that affect the safety of blood.

    You must NEVER give blood if:

    You, or any of your current (or past) sexual partners have (had) AIDS or a positive test for HIV.
    You carry the Hepatitis B or C virus.
    You have ever injected yourself, even once, with drugs not prescribed by a Doctor.
    You have haemophilia or a related clotting disorder and have received treatment with plasma derived clotting factor concentrates at any time.
    You think you need an HIV or Hepatitis test.
    You must not give blood for:
    FIVE YEARS:

    Following oral or anal sex with or without a condom with another man (if you are male).
    After engaging in sex work (prostitution) or accepting payment in exchange for sex in any country other than New Zealand.
    After leaving a country in which you have lived and which is considered to be high risk of HIV infection (includes sub Saharan Africa and parts of Asia. Full list available at blood collection sessions or please call your local Donor Centre or 0800 GIVE BLOOD (0800 448 325) and speak to our Donor Staff to discuss your eligibility).
    You must not give blood for:
    ONE YEAR:

    Following sex with anyone:
    whom you know carries the Hepatitis B or C virus.
    who is a sex worker (prostitute).
    who has ever injected themselves with drugs not prescribed by a Doctor.
    who lives in or comes from a country considered high risk for HIV infection.
    who has haemophilia or a related blood clotting disorder and received treatment with plasma derived clotting factor concentrates at any time.
    After engaging in sex work (prostitution) or accepting payment in exchange for sex in New Zealand.
    If you are a woman, after engaging in sex with a man who has had oral or anal sex with another man.
    back to top

    Sexually transmitted disease (STDs) – I have recently had a sexually transmitted disease. Can I donate?
    Depending on the type of STD you have or have had in the past there could be a temporary or permanent deferral that applies.

    If multiple episodes of sexually transmitted infections have occurred a person may not be able to give blood donations.

    After an episode of gonorrhoea – you must wait for one year from recovery and the end of treatment.

    For chlamydia and non specific urethritis we will ask you to wait for 4 weeks after full recovery and completing antibiotic treatment.

    If you have or have had syphilis you are not eligible to donate.

    For other infections – please discuss with Staff. If uncertain, please call your local Donor Centre or 0800 GIVE BLOOD (0800 448 325) and speak to our Donor Staff to discuss your eligibility.

    back to top

    Shingles – I have recently had shingles. Can I donate?
    You will be able to donate when you are feeling well and the rash is completely clean and dry. NZ Blood Service may also be able to use your plasma to provide valuable antibodies to protect people at risk of chicken pox. If you live near one of our main Donor Centres, please tell us about your chicken pox infection as soon as possible as we may wish to arrange special tests to check your chicken pox antibody level. Please call your local Donor Centre.

    back to top

    Splenectomy – I had my spleen removed. Can I donate?
    If your spleen was removed due to trauma or physical injury you are eligible to donate 6 months after full recovery. If you received a blood transfusion as well, you will not be eligible to donate for 12 months after the transfusion.

    If however, your spleen was removed to treat a chronic illness such as immune thrombocytopaenic purpura (ITP) or lymphoma, you are not eligible to donate blood.

    back to top

    Stroke and transient ischaemic attack (TIA) – I have had a stroke/TIA. Can I donate?
    After a stroke or TIA it will not be possible for you to give blood again, even if you have recovered fully. This requirement is to protect your own health as you may not be able to tolerate giving a 470mL blood donation.

    back to top

    Smoking – Can I donate if I am a smoker?
    Yes however we strongly recommend you wait at least 1 hour after your donation before having a smoke.

    back to top

    Surgery – I have surgery planned in the near future. Can I donate?
    If you have surgery planned within 84 days, you may be deferred if there is a risk of significant blood loss during the surgery. Please call your local Donor Centre or 0800 GIVE BLOOD (0800 448 325 ) and ask to speak to our Staff to discuss your eligibility.

    How long after surgery will I have to wait before I donate?
    The length of time to wait before donating blood after surgery depends on a number of factors. They include the condition for which you had surgery, the type of surgery and the recovery period. For most surgery this is 3-6 months but if you received a blood transfusion, the waiting period is 12 months.

    If you need more information, please call your local Donor Centre or 0800 GIVE BLOOD (0800 448 325) and ask to speak to our Staff to discuss your eligibility.

    back to top

    Systemic lupus erythematosus – I have systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) can I donate?
    If you have SLE we will need to confirm your diagnosis. If no treatment has been needed to suppress the condition in the last 12 months, then you may be able to donate.

    back to top

    T
    Tattoo – I just got a tattoo. Can I donate? You cannot donate for 6 months after receiving a tattoo. This also applies to cosmetic tattooing.

    back to top

    Termination of pregnancy
    Termination of pregnancy – see Miscarriage

    back to top

    Thrombosis
    See Deep vein thrombosis

    Other thrombosis – please call your local Donor Centre or 0800 GIVE BLOOD (0800 448 325) and speak to our Donor Staff.
    back to top

    Time – How long does it take to donate blood?
    The entire process of giving blood takes approximately 60 minutes. This includes filling in the Donor Health Questionnaire Form and the confidential interview with the nurse. The donation itself takes only 5-10 minutes, and finally 10-15 minutes to rest and have refreshment afterwards.

    The rest period after each donation is an important part of the process. Your body is adjusting to a reduced blood volume and will be slowly moving fluid from your tissues back into your blood. Having a drink is also an important part of replacing the volume of blood you have donated.

    For your safety it is strongly recommended that you rest for 10-15 minutes after the blood donation to minimise the risk of fainting.

    A plasma donation takes longer than a whole blood donation – about 45 minutes for the collection period. The same comments apply as for whole blood donation.

    back to top

    Tooth extraction – I have had a tooth / teeth extracted. When can I donate?
    If the extraction was uncomplicated we will ask you to wait 7 days. If the extraction involved multiple teeth or resulted in complications, we will ask you to wait 4 weeks after full recovery.

    back to top

    Toxoplasma infection/toxoplasmosis – I have had toxoplasma infection. When can I donate?
    We ask you to wait for 6 months from full recovery and completing antibiotic treatment.

    back to top

    U
    Ulcer – I have a stomach (gastric) or duodenal ulcer. When can I donate?
    We ask you to wait until a minimum of 3 months after oral treatment for gastric or duodenal ulcers, and all symptoms have settled.

    If you have had a partial gastrectomy for surgery, we ask you to wait for 6 months before donating.

    If you have had a total gastrectomy you will not be able to donate, as your ability to absorb iron is permanently reduced.

    back to top

    Ulcerative colitis – I have ulcerative colitis. Can I donate?
    You will not be able to donate blood if you have ulcerative colitis.
    See also Irritable bowel.

    back to top

    V
    Vaccination – how long after I’ve had a vaccination (or flu shot, etc) can I donate?
    It depends on the type of vaccine. Those made from ‘killed / inactivated / recombinant’ material generally do not affect eligibility. These include diphtheria, influenza (flu), hepatitis A, meningococcus, pertussis (whooping cough), pneumococcus, Q fever, tetanus, human papillomavirus (Gardasil) and others.

    The exception is hepatitis B. If you have received this vaccine, you should not donate for a week as it may interfere with our testing.

    Vaccines made from ‘live / attenuated’ material restrict our use of your donation. We can use the plasma from your donation but are not able to use red cells from a whole blood donation during the 4 week period after vaccination. These include BCG (tuberculosis), measles, mumps, Polio – Sabin oral polio vaccine, and varicella (chicken pox); but 8 weeks after rubella (German measles) vaccine and combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine.

    If you are unsure about your eligibility to donate after vaccination, please call your local Donor Centre or call 0800 GIVE BLOOD (0800 448 325) and ask to speak to our Donor Staff.

    back to top

    Vaccination for hepatitis B – I’ve had a hepatitis B vaccination. Can I Give Blood
    You should wait one week after receiving this vaccine to donate. Hepatitis A is a quite different vaccine and it is possible to give blood immediately providing you are well and any inflammation at the injection site has settled.

    back to top

    Varicose veins surgery or injection – I have had surgery or injection treatment for varicose veins
    We ask you to wait for 4 weeks after injection treatment and until fully recovered.

    back to top

    Vasectomy – I have had a vasectomy. When can I donate?
    We ask you to wait for 2 weeks until the wound is healed and you are fully recovered.

    back to top

    W
    Wart virus – I have wart (human papilloma) virus. Can I donate?
    Yes, as long as there is no broken skin or localised infection.

    back to top

    Weight – How much should I weigh if I want to donate blood?
    The minimum weight is 50kg for whole blood donation. We will not normally accept new apheresis (plasma or platelet) donors who weigh less than 60kg, unless the donor has a special antibody that is needed to make a special treatment product.

    The amount of blood your body contains is proportional to your weight: heavier people have a larger volume of blood. If a standard donation of 470mL plus test samples is too large a proportion of your blood volume, you will be unable to donate.

    These criteria are in place to protect your health as a donor. If your weight becomes acceptable for blood donation at any time you can be accepted as a blood donor.

    Is there any upper weight limit for blood donors?
    Yes, this is related to the maximum safe capacity of our donor chairs which may vary from site to site.

    To find out specific information about your local collection centre, call your local Donor Centre or 0800 GIVE BLOOD (0800 448 325) and speak to our Donor Staff.

    back to top

    What if I use condoms every time?
    Condoms reduce the risk, but there is always a very small risk, if the condom breaks or is not used properly, of transmission.
    The relative risk of HIV transmission is much higher with a transfusion of infected blood than with sexual intercourse with an infected partner. This justifies a more stringent approach to risk reduction for transfusion.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. eszett (2,336 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (3,217) Says:
    March 28th, 2013 at 4:08 pm
    Very clever eszett but you have proved my point.

    Which was what? That you haven’t got a clue what you are talking about?
    That you are blinded by your pathological hatred of homosexuality that you are unable to have any kind of rational discussion on this topic?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Harriet (4,519 comments) says:

    “….Given that we live in a secular liberal democracy, what on earth does religious faith have to do with anything?…”

    It’s not just ‘faith’!

    Look! Bibles are free! People are allowed to read u’know!

    Anyway, in simple terms, you could also call it a ‘code of conduct’. People are allowed to have morals and base that upon religious morality.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Chuck Bird (4,682 comments) says:

    That must be the funniest post it this thread.
    I wonder if it is going to be just as effective as the virginity pledges.

    It will be a lot more effective as the politicians will find out next election. My vote will go to the Conservative Party or NZF and I am sure nearly all of those who sign the pledge will vote in a similar manner.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. jawnbc (44 comments) says:

    Wow, the level of insight shared on here is…like the internet.

    In our legal tradition civil and religious celebrants are differentiated. Not celebrants who have or don’t have religious or personal beliefs: those whose faith tradition has given them an office allows them to solmenize marriages. This bill works within the existing sane paradigm. Civil celebrants are agents of the state; religious ones are agents of their faith. Agents of the state can’t refuse service based on personal beliefs: they need to work within the statutory requirements of the matter at hand.

    I’ve been married to my husband for 8 years. Sky hasn’t fallen–in Canada, where I’m from, in Australia, where we lived the first two years of our marriage, or in New Zealand, our new home. So chill out. And see if someone can take you to Farmer’s this weekend: there’s a sale on and a lot of you clearly need to get some big-boy pants and grow up. A lot.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Lucia Maria (2,207 comments) says:

    Kea at 4:12 pm,

    You know most people just link to incredibly long pieces rather than spamming the thread, especially since what you posted is full of “back to top” lines that you didn’t even bother to edit out.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Thanks for the tip Lucy, on what “most people” do.

    Do you know that “most people” do not oppose gay marriage ?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Harriet (4,519 comments) says:

    “….Do you know that “most people” do not oppose gay marriage ?…”

    So you are also saying Kea that ‘most people’ have a full complete understanding of all the issues surrounding gay Marriage?

    C’mon, all 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21lyds ect?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Harriet (4,519 comments) says:

    Kea#

    Those from the UK who emmigrate to Australia are not allowed to donate blood either.

    And it is because of ‘mad cow’ disease. A freind of mine found out when he put in for his visa application.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. iMP (2,245 comments) says:

    An eyewitness to yesterdays 800 strong vigil outside parliament (500 against; 300 for) writes…

    http://conzervative.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/an-eyewitness-to-yesterdays-parliament-vigil/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    So you are also saying Kea that ‘most people’ have a full complete understanding of all the issues surrounding gay Marriage?

    C’mon, all 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21lyds ect?

    No. I am saying that most people do not oppose gay marriage Lucy.

    Do you think all people who oppose gay marriage have a full complete understanding ?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Andrei (2,500 comments) says:

    Do you know that “most people” do not oppose gay marriage ?

    So we are continually told, along with the idea that those that do are old and doddery.

    And yet in these matters we are often lied to or given a distorted version of the real truth.

    Such as the prayer vigil outside Parliament last night gets very little coverage and the coverage it does is illustrated with a lesbian kiss.

    See opposition to this gets very little coverage and what it does get is spun in a most unfavourable light.

    The elites have decided we will have gay “marriage” because they are of the “we know what is best for you” mind set

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Andrei, I agree coverage is slanted and you people in opposition do not get a fair go. This is typical of our social engineering media and I am strongly oppossed to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. RRM (9,453 comments) says:

    Chuck, chuck, chuck…

    Let’s take this a step at a time, shall we?

    In 1983, *NO* donor blood was screened for HIV.

    In 2013, *ALL* donor blood is screened for HIV.

    So, why do we need a blanket ban on accepting blood donations from homosexuals, again?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Fletch (6,025 comments) says:

    Some video of the protests last night from TV3 –

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Protesters-debate-marriage-equality-bill/tabid/370/articleID/292057/Default.aspx

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Scott (1,707 comments) says:

    Most people do not favour gay marriage. Kevin Hague admitted as much in a public meeting I was part of where he said that “minorities don’t do well in referendums”. This was in answer to Colin Craig about, why shouldn’t gay marriage be the subject of a referendum? He knows that if there was a referendum on this issue gay marriage would lose.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Harriet (4,519 comments) says:

    Kea#

    Legalising homosexuality is completly differant to legalising gay Marriage.
    One was the right to do something – their ‘own thing’.
    The other being the right to change something which was representative of others, so that gays can then ‘participate’ in it!

    Or in other words – if Marriage wasn’t being ‘changed’ gays couldn’t then participate in it. Gays can’t/won’t conform to Marriage, so it HAS to be changed to SUIT them!

    Marriage IS being changed so that gays can get married – that’s what is happening.

    Trying to be a little bit like others- but only the bits that suit you- is not ‘equality’!

    And when you do it by devious means, that’s called taking something that is NOT yours! Stealing! :cool:

    Most people don’t understand the gay marriage thing because the media, gays, and politicians don’t want them to !

    And those that do would be labeled ‘homphobic’ ect.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Harriet (4,519 comments) says:

    “…So, why do we need a blanket ban on accepting blood donations from homosexuals, again?…”

    It’s so that money, time and people are not wasted!

    It is the equivilent of getting people – to draw water from a stone!

    There.Solved it. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Marriage IS being changed so that gays can get married – that’s what is happening.

    No it IS not.

    This in no way changes your personal definition of marriage. You will not be compelled by law to be gay or marry someone of the same gender. I promise.

    What the proposal really says, is that others will no longer have your definition of marriage forced on them.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    One was the right to do something – their ‘own thing’.
    The other being the right to change something which was representative of others, so that gays can then ‘participate’ in it!

    Or in other words – if Marriage wasn’t being ‘changed’ gays couldn’t then participate in it. Gays can’t/won’t conform to Marriage, so it HAS to be changed to SUIT them!

    Harriet, the progressive libertarians here know that you are right in what you’re saying, but their lack of morality prohibits them from giving a damn about being dishonest about it.

    When you look at the posts on this blog over a long period of time and read how the regulars interpret various issues, a pattern becomes very apparent.

    For instance, lately they declare market forces should determine whether 13 year olds can be prostitutes, they argue that speed limits on the open road are silly, the tradition of marriage is nonsense, regulation is always wrong and bla bla blah.

    The consistent pattern is a nihilistic approach to anything and everything and a good deal of tall poppy cutting to boot.

    Take marriage for instance.

    Marriage is about commitment and a declaration of intent to live by the highest ideals of male/female relationship, so why do they hate it so much and want to unleash the gays on the institution? because they loath people that commit to such ideals.
    They hate it, they can’t stand it and see these couples as pious sanctimonious arseholes even without real evidence to support such an opinion. It is the epitome of the tall poppy syndrome, it is an attitude of envy and driven by a subconscious realization of their own moral failure, most likely over a variety of life issues.

    Hence the institution doesn’t stand a chance, it represents everything they hate about society, and now they have the power and the numbers to tear it down.

    That’s what is really going on.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Reid (15,947 comments) says:

    It’s a classic propaganda technique to deflect attention from an issue that would generate strong opposition [gay adoption] by talking a lot (i.e. almost exclusively) about an issue that doesn’t generate the same degree of opposition [religion] and pretend the latter is the only relevant argument.

    Of course this doesn’t mean every person who supports the proposition and raises the meme knows that they’re raising a meme. This is why they’re called useful idiots.

    But in this way, the debate is controlled, because both the opposition and the useful-idiot supporters flock to the meme, thus ignoring the proverbial elephant in the room.

    The relevance is of course the instant one notices this dynamic it’s an instant tell as to the veracity of the campaign. Is it really about what the supporters and their useful idiots say it’s about, or is it about something else?

    I had to laugh when Goldsmith said this:

    People often ask “Well, why do they want marriage when they can have civil unions already?”. The answer is, of course, that words are important, which is why people on both sides feel so strongly about it.

    Considering the vehement denials by multitudes of supporters and their useful idiots from day one of this whole debate when I said that a word is precisely what it was all about and now to have one of the flagship supporters finally come out and admit it, is just priceless. Sad to say, it’s a pyrrhic victory. It’s all too late, it will happen. So be it.

    But since this is a religious theme, this is one of the things the Bible says on it. It’s not very equivocal.
    Romans 1:26-32

    For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. UglyTruth (3,994 comments) says:

    and now they have the power and the numbers to tear it down.

    You’re giving them way too much credit. One of the things about common law is that it assists the vigilant. This is advantage that Parliament does not have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Chuck Bird (4,682 comments) says:

    In 1983, *NO* donor blood was screened for HIV.
    In 2013, *ALL* donor blood is screened for HIV.

    RRM, I am not up to date with the latest screening methods and what is called a window. As far as I know there is still a window which is the time one is infected and when it can be accurately detected. In the 90s and early 2000s the window was generally about 3 months but could be up to a year. I knew a fair bit about it but do not profess to be an expert.

    That of course just covers HIV. Would you want a blood transfusion from someone with other serious and possibly deadly STD?

    I think you are drawing a long bow if you think the people who decide on HIV screening procedures in New Zealand and overseas are a bunch of conservative homophobes who hate homosexuals and prostitutes and want to make them feel bad about themselves.

    I might add that even the NZ AIDS Foundation does not even support the call for NZ Blood Services to change screening policies that the homosexual activists nut jobs are calling for.

    The people who determine screening policies at NZ Blood Services are experts unlike MPs who think they are experts on everything. No one is and certainly MPs in general and definitely not list MPs.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda (2,557) Says:
    March 28th, 2013 at 5:38 pm

    Wow that was awesome :)

    One of the best brain farts I have seen on KB for a while. There is so much I want to say, but I will leave your post to its own merits.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Wow that was awesome

    Thanks Kea, there may be hope for you after all me old codger! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

    ========================================================================

    Shit a brick ! And you guys bang on about the Muslims.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. berend (1,634 comments) says:

    DPF: Why would anyone want to force an unwilling celebrant into marrying them, on what should be their happiest day. You’d be nuts to. So while there are some important principles at stake here, let’s not think that this will ever have practical impact.

    Meanwhile on planet earth: Homosexual couples in Denmark have won the right to get married in any church they choose,

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html

    The country’s parliament voted through the new law on same-sex marriage by a large majority, making it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    berend, I am an atheist and I am ok with gay marriage. But that makes my blood boil. The reason I do not oppose gay marriage is to do with freedom of choice. By forcing religious people to marry homos, against the clear words of their bible, they are removing freedoms not giving them. No way do I approve of that.

    I will be against gay marriage if it means adoption or forcing people to conduct queer weddings.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Harriet (4,519 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth#

    “….You’re giving them way too much credit. One of the things about common law is that it assists the vigilant. This is advantage that Parliament does not have….”

    I’m not so sure about that. Shunda is probably right.

    “……Lord Moulton divided society into three sectors, of which he considered the most important to be the “middle land” between law and absolute freedom — the domain of manners, in which the individual has to be “trusted to obey self-imposed law.” “To my mind,” wrote Moulton, “the real greatness of a nation, its true civilization, is measured by the extent of this land.” By that measure, our greatness is shriveling fast: The land of self-regulation has been encroached on remorselessly, to the point where we increasingly accept that everything is either legal or illegal, and therefore to render any judgment of our own upon the merits of this or that would be presumptuous.

    ……[The government through the courts: and employment courts/legislation etc] by colonizing Moulton’s “middle land” unto policing dress codes, religious expression, social habits, and even casual conversational exchanges.”fair balance”? Only the state and the courts can definitively establish that. However they can’t — or not reliably.

    …a kind of civic paralysis sets in: It is a small step from a citizenry that no longer knows how it should act to a citizenry that no longer knows whether or if it can act, and from there to a citizenry that can no longer act. When everything is the domain of law, everyone is potentially a criminal. Over the decades, National Review has been famously antipathetic to Ayn Rand, but she called this one a long time ago. In Atlas Shrugged, one of her characters muses: “One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”

    Which is about where we are…..” – Mark Steyn. ‘Every man a criminal.’

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. berend (1,634 comments) says:

    Kea, any civil servant, which a marriage celebrant is, will be FORCED. The religious exception clause will go. It has gone everywhere it was used. But then, after a few years, “it has been long enough.”

    And I can’t believe you cannot see the distinction between the relation of a couple raising the next generation, and two people who are just looking for recognition.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    berend, well if that is the case I may be changing my view. I am not at all comfortable with religious folk being forced to marry the hell bound sodomite dammed !

    Yes I see the distinction. But if it does not seriously harm others, then we must let people do these things, in order to live together and exercise tolerance. Or next time it may be YOUR rights they take.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. UglyTruth (3,994 comments) says:

    But since this is a religious theme, this is one of the things the Bible says on it. It’s not very equivocal.
    Romans 1:26-32

    That’s fine, but it is only religion. Pauline doctrine was never part of the common law.
    The schism between Paul and James the just had James leading his followers according to Judaic law, while Paul ended his days in Rome.
    The schism reappeared much later in England as the nineteen year winter.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. cha (3,779 comments) says:

    Heh….

    “That’s a compelling argument, and to deny that you’ve got to have a very strong argument on the other side. And the other side hasn’t been able to do anything but thump the Bible.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Harriet (4,519 comments) says:

    “…..And I can’t believe you cannot see the distinction between the relation of a couple raising the next generation, and two people who are just looking for recognition….”

    Well put!

    Kids that will be raised by gays will always question themselves. Some who have already been raised by gays have been promiscuious in their teens to prove to themselves and others that they arn’t ‘gay’.

    But arn’t gays supposed to be ‘born that way’ arn’t they supposed to know that they were gay ‘from their earliest memories’?

    The government has simply let their emotions overcome their judgement so as to be on the ‘right side of history’……and in doing so, the wrong side of governing the welfare of children. Cheers Berend.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Kea (2,912) Says:
    March 28th, 2013 at 6:37 pm

    I will be against gay marriage if it means adoption or forcing people to conduct queer weddings.

    Are you also against interracial marriages if it means forcing people to conduct interracial weddings? Not that I agree with your point of view, but one wrong doesn’t justify another. Your issue is with the Human Rights Act, not gay marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Harriet (4,519 comments) says:

    “…..Or next time it may be YOUR rights they take…..”

    Kea…you clearly don’t know what you’re yabbering on about. :cool:

    “….Of all the phony arguments for gay marriage, the phoniest is the argument that it is a matter of equal rights. Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have.

    People who are simply living together can make whatever arrangements they want, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. They can divide up their worldly belongings 50-50 or 90-10 or whatever other way they want. They can make their union temporary or permanent or subject to cancellation at any time.

    Marriage is a restriction. If my wife buys an automobile with her own money, under California marriage laws I automatically own half of it, whether or not my name is on the title. Whether that law is good, bad, or indifferent, it is a limitation of our freedom to arrange such things as we ourselves might choose. This is just one of many decisions that marriage laws take out of our hands.

    Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the life of the law is not logic but experience. Marriage laws have evolved through centuries of experience with couples of opposite sexes — and the children that result from such unions. Society asserts its stake in the decisions made by restricting the couples’ options.

    Society has no such stake in the outcome of a union between two people of the same sex. Transferring all those laws to same-sex couples would make no more sense than transferring the rules of baseball to football.

    Why then do gay activists want their options restricted by marriage laws, when they can make their own contracts with their own provisions and hold whatever kinds of ceremony they want to celebrate it?

    The issue is not individual rights. What the activists are seeking is official social approval of their lifestyle. But this is the antithesis of equal rights.

    If you have a right to someone else’s approval, then they do not have a right to their own opinions and values. You cannot say that what “consenting adults” do in private is nobody else’s business and then turn around and say that others are bound to put their seal of approval on it.

    The rhetoric of “equal rights” has become the road to special privilege for all sorts of groups, so perhaps it was inevitable that gay activists would take that road as well. It has worked.

    They have already succeeded in getting far more government money for AIDS than for other diseases that kill far more people.
    There is no limit to what people will do if you let them get away with it. That our schools, which are painfully failing to educate our children to the standards in other countries, have time for promoting homosexuality is truly staggering.

    Every special interest group has an incentive to take something away from society as a whole. Some will be content just to siphon off a share of the taxpayers’ money for themselves. Others, however, want to dismantle a part of the structure of values that make a society viable.

    They may not want to bring down the whole structure, just get rid of the part that cramps their style. But when innumerable groups start dismantling pieces of the structure that they don’t like, we can be headed for the kinds of social collapses seen both in history and in other parts of the world in our own times…..” – Thomas Sowell.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    berend (1,300) Says:
    March 28th, 2013 at 6:46 pm

    And I can’t believe you cannot see the distinction between the relation of a couple raising the next generation, and two people who are just looking for recognition.

    And I can’t believe the dishonesty of people who offer such pathetic excuses for what is little more than an attempt to impose one’s religious values on another. It’s all about procreation and “raising the next generation” except two heterosexual 60 year old’s can get a marriage license and we just file that little inconsistency and inconvenience into a box and not think about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Reid (15,947 comments) says:

    That’s fine, but it is only religion. Pauline doctrine was never part of the common law.

    Man-made laws and Biblical Law doesn’t intermingle UT. It may coincide, but it doesn’t intermingle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda (2,565) Says:
    March 28th, 2013 at 5:38 pm

    Marriage is about commitment and a declaration of intent to live by the highest ideals of male/female relationship, so why do they hate it so much and want to unleash the gays on the institution? because they loath people that commit to such ideals.

    They hate it, they can’t stand it and see these couples as pious sanctimonious arseholes even without real evidence to support such an opinion.

    It isn’t married couples that are pious sanctimonious arseholes. It is you and there is plenty of evidence to support that conclusion.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Harriet, yes I do know what I am on about. My only problem is my inability to explain it to you.

    “What the activists are seeking is official social approval of their lifestyle. But this is the antithesis of equal rights.”

    Now that is some crazy logic Harriet. No wonder I have failed to convey my position to you.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. SPC (5,392 comments) says:

    How is this about gay adoption, when gays can adopt unrelated children now, as individuals (with or without partners)?

    How is this about forcing churches to host weddings, when religious use buildings and personnel are specifically exempt? Any change would require a future change to the legislation.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    SPC, if gays can adopt unrelated children, now, then that needs to change. Urgently.

    I do not think opponents of gay marriage are comforted by specific exemptions and for good reason it appears. They see this as the foot-in-the-door to other things. They have a point.

    I know your a disruptive communist, but try and see their point of view too. If nothing else, it will help you debate them more effectively.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Harriet (1,383) Says:
    March 28th, 2013 at 7:03 pm

    Kids that will be raised by gays will always question themselves. Some who have already been raised by gays have been promiscuious in their teens to prove to themselves and others that they arn’t ‘gay’.

    I love it how idiots like you do your utmost to create the stigma against homosexuals and then proceed to claim kids will be harmed because they might feel uncomfortable being associated with people who are stigmatized. Pure arseholery.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. SPC (5,392 comments) says:

    Kea, they can. It’s about 1 child of the 50 unrelated children adopted each year.

    No they have no point. It’s like claiming once there is law, regulation, tax where will it stop. What next change anything and the conservative preaches the world, as they know, it will end.

    I’m not debating, just noting the facts are unrelated to their paranoia.

    Who debates with losers, we won.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    SPC, I think you are young cocky and idealistic, that is why you can not see their point.

    1 in 50 is one in fifty too much. It is not about morals, religion, beliefs, laws or any other subjective thing. It is nature, god, evolution that made those rules. If homos want kids then they can knock themselves out fucking each other, the same as the rest of us have to. You can not get greater equality than that.

    Don’t let ideology blind you to what is in front of your eyes.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. SPC (5,392 comments) says:

    Kea, and what is their point?

    Same sex marriage does not enable adoption, that already exists in some form. There is no threat that churches and personnel will host and perform marriages, not unless they choose to.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. UglyTruth (3,994 comments) says:

    Man-made laws and Biblical Law doesn’t intermingle UT. It may coincide, but it doesn’t intermingle

    English common law is an example, perhaps the only one, of the two systems mixing. The common law makes reference to deity as a source of wisdom and authority, but also acknowledges that man has the ability to make law.

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

    SPC, their argument is that churches will be forced to marry same sex couples or it will be discrimination. They have a point.

    It is simply not possible to have a same sex christian marriage. That form of marriage is between a man and a woman. Christians invented that (along with god) and they own it. Gays can not have their cake and eat it too. The bible leaves no doubt about this issue. Gays can and do push for christian marriage. It is very dishonest of them to do so.

    Many gays agree with my view and don’t want to be part of that. They simply want the freedom to do their own thing. That is where I do support them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Reid (15,947 comments) says:

    Who debates with losers, we won.

    No I’m afraid not SPC. We. We. We as in us, all lost.

    Which precise human wight’s discwimination has been addresed by this law?

    Before this law passes gay couples have all legal rights bar adoption,

    So apart from the adoption “wight” in which case let’s have a gay adoption debate, what precise excwable discwimination has been eliminated from the face of the Earth by this bill which will pass?

    A word?

    So let’s get this straight. A vast segment of utter morons led [unwittingly] by the nose a very small handful of very clever people have given away, for free, the womb of human civilisation, the very basis of reproductive socialisation. For nothing.

    You know what springs to mind for some reason? Chamberlain and “Peace in our time.”

    Too bad the folly will take generations to appear. 75 years, three generations is my prediction, before most of society groans under the weight of your folly, the useful idiots, who think it’s about “human wights.”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. SPC (5,392 comments) says:

    Kea, their argument is only valid if one was ignorant of the proposed legislation, that specifically exempts churches from having to host same sex weddings. They have no point.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. SPC (5,392 comments) says:

    Reid, gays can adopt now, as individuals.

    A majority in the UK, France and the rest of North and Western Europe, and the USA support same sex marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    SPC, they say this is a foot in the door. See what Reid just posted too. He has few questions for you to chew on.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. SPC (5,392 comments) says:

    Kea, it’s not a foot in the door when the legislation specifically exempts churches from having to host same sex weddings. The door is closed on that. Marriage law is rarely changed.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Reid (15,947 comments) says:

    He has few questions for you to chew on.

    Thanks Kea, most appreciated, glad to see someone doesn’t think I have horns on this :)

    Another two questions:

    Are women great communicators?

    They are, aren’t they.

    Why?

    Their job in civilisation is to communicate the culture to the offspring. How the hell does a gay man do that?

    What’s the job of a father to his little girl?

    Be a hero and save the princess. How the hell does a gay woman do that?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    It isn’t married couples that are pious sanctimonious arseholes. It is you and there is plenty of evidence to support that conclusion.

    Why thank you Whale-Hannah! your powers of deduction from provocative blog postings are most impressive. I wonder whether you do as well in the real world? ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Harriet (4,519 comments) says:

    Weihana (3,032) Says:

    Harriet (1,383) Says:
    March 28th, 2013 at 7:03 pm “….Kids that will be raised by gays will always question themselves. Some who have already been raised by gays have been promiscuious in their teens to prove to themselves and others that they arn’t ‘gay’…”

    “……I love it how idiots like you[Harriet] do your utmost to create the stigma against homosexuals and then proceed to claim kids will be harmed because they might feel uncomfortable being associated with people who are stigmatized. Pure arseholery…..”

    REALLY?

    It took me ages to find it – but I did ! :cool:

    One person who has spent a lot of time looking into this question is psychologist Dr Joe Nicolosi. He argues that kids raised by homosexuals are traumatised, emotionally and socially. Children, he argues, are profoundly affected by parental behaviour. For example, children of smokers often become smokers.

    “Homosexuality,” says Nicolosi, “is primarily an identity problem, not a sexual problem, and it begins in childhood. The process begins when a child realizes that the world is divided between male and female and that he is not equipped to be identified as male. His father fails to sufficiently encourage male-gender identity. Because he is not fully male-gender-identified, he is not psychologically prepared to feel heterosexual attractions. In order to be attracted to women, a male must feel sufficiently masculine. Faced with this predicament, he goes into a world of fantasy and denies the imperative of being either male or female.”

    The absence of role models presents other problems. How will a man raised by two men know how to relate to a woman? Or how will a man raised by two women know how to relate to men? Thus the Beatles were wrong: love is not all you need, at least when it comes to parenting. As two family experts point out: “The two most loving mothers in the world can’t be a father to a little boy. Love can’t equip mothers to teach a little boy how to be a man. Likewise, the two most loving men can’t be a mother to a child.”

    They continue, “Love does little to help a man teach a little girl how to be a woman. Can you imagine two men guiding a young girl through her first menstrual cycle or helping her through the awkwardness of picking out her first bra? Such a situation might make for a funny television sitcom but not a very good real-life situation for a young girl.”

    One woman who was raised by lesbians now runs a support and recovery program for those coming out of the homosexual lifestyle and their families. She put it this way: “I realise that homosexuals feel they can give a child love and support that even many straight families can’t provide, but I’ve been there. I know the finger-pointing and the shame one carries. For years, you struggle with the thought that you might be a homosexual. People say ‘like mother, like daughter.’ Most of us become promiscuous to prove we’re straight.”

    Another woman says this of her upbringing by two homosexuals: “From 40 years of experience, I can tell you that, even though my father loved me, his homosexual orientation handicapped my ability to learn to relate to life in a healthy way. My homosexual home stunted my growth as a person and as a woman, not to mention the damaging effect of 16 years of drugs and alcohol abuse on my early childhood development. I spent the first 20 years of my life in a family that nearly destroyed me and the last 20 years analyzing and being analyzed in order to make sense of it. The bottom line is: I was dearly loved by my father. His love alone was not enough to give me the foundation that I needed to grow into a secure young woman…. My father and I have looked back through the past and discussed the issue of homosexual parenting. With great remorse, he agrees the homosexual lifestyle, no matter how conservative, is not healthy for children. My father and I agree: homosexuality and raising healthy children exclude each other.”

    Here is another person who can speak from experience in this area. A lesbian mother has publicly expressed her regret at bearing three children through artificial insemination. The New Zealand woman, who says she is “now in the process of becoming a heterosexual,” had a stormy relationship with her lesbian lover, which eventually broke down. Her comments are worth noting: “I realise now that I deprived my kids of their right to a father, and I see the hurt in their faces every day. . . . I believe children should have the best opportunities in life. The best way they can have a balanced view of what is normal is with heterosexual parents.”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Gay marriage was tried at a State level once already in History, then it got repealed:

    Early Roman poets and critics wrote about the practice, from Juvenal’s satire that mentions Gracchus, who “arrayed himself in the flounces and train and veil of a bride,” to Martial, a first-century poet who observed that homosexual marriage was not uncommon in the empire during the first century. Both Juvenal and Martial gave us accounts of men who “played the bride” in wedding ceremonies, wearing bridal veils like women.

    But our most detailed images of homosexual marriages come from the descriptions of Roman emperors. Nero, a depraved first-century emperor, married at least two men. He wed Pythagoras in a formal same-sex wedding by first putting on a bridal veil that made Nero the “bride” and Pythagoras the “groom.” Every symbol of a classical marriage was present at this ceremony: a dowry, marriage bed, torches, and witnesses. Tacitus, the great Roman historian who records the event, even alludes to the fact that Nero engaged in coitus with the man in front of all the guests, stating that “everything was public which even in a natural union is veiled by night.”

    ” During his reign he captured Christians and, after fixing them to stakes, burned them in his garden at night for a source of light. He is known for numerous brutal executions, including that of his own mother. He committed suicide in June of 68.

    Good stuff :o

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Reid (15,947 comments) says:

    “Homosexuality,” says Nicolosi, “is primarily an identity problem, not a sexual problem, and it begins in childhood.

    What I’ve always wanted to see Harriet is stats on who was abused in childhood and homosexuality vs those who weren’t ever abused but who are homosexual. Accurate stats I mean, not massaged for public consumption lest the truth out kind of stats.

    Show us the data, in other words.

    But it’s not available. For understandable reasons.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Harriet (4,519 comments) says:

    Reid#

    It’s not only abuse.

    The other matter is teenage boys who have been taken advantage of.

    There are plenty of cases where single mums want to affirm their sons into being male and do the right thing by sending their sons to Scouts or sports clubs ect.[in the 60's they sent them to church activity groups] While there, the boys then look up to those who show an interest in them – the gays who have been drawn like a magnet to such places!

    And that is why we have always seen the likes of teachers, scout leaders, sports coaches ect in the news for youth related sexual crimes.

    Plumbers, factory workers, and pilots etc are never in the news paper for doing that stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    The role model argument is a valid one. It is well accepted that environment does iimpact a child’s mind and behaviour. I would qualify that by saying it does not follow that a child raised by homosexuals will turn out to be a homosexual. But there could be other developmental issues that arise. I have to take the natural view that kids are supposed to have a mum and a dad. Evolution and biology seem to agree. Some of you may want to insert God in there, which is not a problem, because you arrive at the same conclusion.

    Often the pro gay marriage folk point to kids raised in dysfunctional hetrosexual relationships, to demonstrate that being straight does not mean the kids will be raised well. I accept that point. However, they fail to acknowledge that gays fight, bitch, abuse and carry on just like men and women do. They do not occupy any high ground in that area.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Reid (15,947 comments) says:

    Harriet evil people abound.

    No walks of life are immune.

    All are crossed, by people who feel entitled to hurt others.

    It’s not the fault of the walk of life.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Chinarugby (84 comments) says:

    Harriet said……

    And that is why we have always seen the likes of teachers, scout leaders, sports coaches ect in the news for youth related sexual crimes.

    Plumbers, factory workers, and pilots etc are never in the news paper for doing that stuff.

    Are you so sure Harriet?……………… Graham Capil – great leader of NZ Christians and Heterosexual Peoadiphile

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. bringbackdemocracy (394 comments) says:

    Are you sure Rajen Prasad spoke? I thought he was stuffed dummy that Labour wheeled in and out each day, to fill an empty chair on their side of the house.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. gump (1,487 comments) says:

    @Harriet

    “Plumbers, factory workers, and pilots etc are never in the news paper for doing that stuff.”

    —————

    The over-whelming majority of sexual abuse is committed within families.

    I can assure you that “Plumbers, factory workers, and pilots etc” are proportionately represented in the abuse statistics.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Lol…..still thinking Gays are made and not born. What ever sex makes your cock hard is the right one for you….natures made it so.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Kovac (29 comments) says:

    Kea : When you say that gay couples can’t form a Christian marriage do you mean that they can’t be claim to be legitimate Christians in this state or that they can’t be married?

    Because marriage was created long before Christianity so you can’t claim ownership over it.

    And even if you could, I don’t think intellectual property rights last that long.

    And to your later point, i’m sure that environment has a great impact over the development of a child. But where is your evidence that a same sex family has a negative or inferior result in raising a child?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. UglyTruth (3,994 comments) says:

    Kovac, another way of putting it is that gays can’t lawfully marry (according to the law of the land which is common law).
    It has nothing to do with intellectual property “rights”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. UpandComer (506 comments) says:

    homosexual ‘isn’t’ normal.

    The homosexual community is rife with depression, std’s, desperation, infidelity and drug use and I think to be old single gay man is possibly the worst thing in the world.

    It’s just a different lifestyle, and actually that’s a fair generalisation to make, because that’s representative, especially for gay men.

    Married people have children. DPF if you want a decent reason, here’s one. Children of gay couples, and they’ll be acquiring children, because that’s a ‘right’ they are ‘entitled’ to, apparently, will miss out on either a mum, or a dad.

    A mum or a dad has two elements – One is the bond by blood, the biological connection, the other is their role as a parent, living with the child, always being there and available with immediacy.

    Now unless you have the surrogate egg donor, or sperm donor or whatever actually living with the child, the child is missing out on a mum or a dad.

    Just the activity makes it fine? i.e. Lesbian mums will get lots of great father figures about? well, it’s not the same. Playing rugby in the back yard with a family male friend, or an uncle, or a cousin, isn’t the same as doing it with your dad. The dad who you are bonded to by blood, and also by their parental relationship.

    Even more special is having a mum, the one who breast-fed you, looked after you when you were sick, bonded with you as a baby, and lives with you in their parental role. That’s denied, and it’s not the same as a surrogate mum who pops in now and then to say hi, and it’s not the same as a gay couple having some random female about now and then to provide a good feminine influence.

    Fundamentally the child of a gay person misses out, in a practical and certain way, of the opportunity to have a mum or a dad.

    That’s effing wrong. Even if you say marriage isn’t characterised or defined by children, in very practical terms that’s where children tend to appear, and you can’t separate the two, because gay couples who can get ‘married’ will want to have a ‘family’. That’s fine, but lets be clear that it’s a substitute. The nuclear family with a mum and a dad is superior, and this needs to be constantly affirmed, because this is the left’s version of their constantly spouted ‘false equivalency’.

    No, if you have a two couples, one heterosexual, one homosexual equal in all respects (i.e. education, affluence, parenting skills etc) bar their sexual preference the former is superior for the kids. The kid gets the fundamental human connection in life, a connection to a mum and a dad.

    DPF I really want you to explain to me why I am wrong and you are right on this issue. This is my concern with gay ‘marriage’. It’s undermining something precious with false equivalency. Gay parents might be able to do good job with kids, but it’s still a substitute for a superior model.

    Also, if marriage is really about love, and nothing to do with children, why can’t I marry my sister?

    And, if marriage and families is really just about socio-economics and having a clever witty gay accountant or IT specialist as a parent, why can’t the state fulfil that role?

    This blog is really great DPF, but I think you are fundamentally wrong on this issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Manolo (13,368 comments) says:

    This blog is really great DPF, but I think you are fundamentally wrong on this issue.

    Sorry, but the National Party, aka Labour lite, is never wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Manolo (13,368 comments) says:

    A good article on it: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/science-same-sex-marriage_708842.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. SPC (5,392 comments) says:

    Up and comer, that is also an argument against single people adopting, solo mothers keeping the children they have, and divorce.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Chuck Bird (4,682 comments) says:

    that is also an argument against single people adopting, solo mothers keeping the children they have, and divorce.

    Now an argument that more than a small minority would support unlike the issue we are discussing where about half the voting population opposes despite the majority of politicians supporting it as well as almost all the MSM>

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. SPC (5,392 comments) says:

    Chuck, it’s a foot in the door to requiring all children to be raised by a father and a mother …

    The legislation has more support than the elected government, about half (but less than half and not as many as those that support it) is not enough to govern.

    The MSM routinely supports tax cuts, Labour still gets elected.

    PS. Anyone care to bet the support in favour is not 60-40 within a decade? After all most of the rise in opposition over the past year is based on fears being raised, and what is feared will not come to pass.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Chuck Bird (4,682 comments) says:

    SPS, you cannot win a debate by arguing a ridiculous position like taking children off a widow. Even those in favour of homosexual adoption would not accept there is any chance of this happening.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. SPC (5,392 comments) says:

    Chuck, then to be consistent the argument that children must have a father and a mother in their parenting has to be withdrawn – applying it to same sex couples alone is discrimination.

    And the foot in the door argument is the one applied by opponents of the legislation, it would lead to all sorts of other things – polygamy etc. Where were you when the foot in the door argument was raised as to churches being forced to marry same sex couples despite legislation specifically saying they would not be.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    SPC so what if something is “discrimination” ?

    We “discriminate” all the time. It is about having judgment, morals, standards, or simply choosing the best outcomes. Society discriminates against those who want to have sex with little kids and would marry them. Should we allow it in your view ?

    Labeling things as “racist” or “discrimination” makes no argument at all

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. SPC (5,392 comments) says:

    Kea, like that adult people should have their consensual freedom, except when you don’t agree? That sort of discrimination, when you decide that morality finally applies to something?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Chuck Bird (4,682 comments) says:

    Chuck, then to be consistent the argument that children must have a father and a mother in their parenting has to be withdrawn

    SPS, that is a straw man argument, who has suggested that? The agreement is about adoption. To say the argument must be withdrawn because opponents of this bill do believe that children should be removed from widow is clearly ridiculous. You would not be a lawyer or a law professor by and chance?

    Where were you when the foot in the door argument was raised as to churches being forced to marry same sex couples despite legislation specifically saying they would not be.

    Where were you when Helen Clark and many others who supported civil unions stated civil unions was enough and homosexual marriage was not necessary?

    It probably not be that long before there are changes made to the legislation or some clever lawyer argues that what is classed as the holy are area of the church is used for heterosexual marriage receptions then it should be used for fake marriages as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    SPC, your “discriminating” again.

    If you really thought anything goes and all points of views and outcomes are ok, you would not be debating on KB, would you?

    What you are trying to do, by using terms like discrimination, is shame people into silence.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. SPC (5,392 comments) says:

    Chuck, a politicians word rarely lasts as long as their career. And even if it did, everyone knows the age for super will rise over 65 despite John Key saying he won’t do it. Same applied to what Clark said.

    Calling for and expecting consistency is not a straw man argument.

    This is the first change to marriage law in over 50 years. It won’t change again in our lifetime. The legislation protects churches from any required involvement in marriages they do not want to hold.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Chuck Bird (4,682 comments) says:

    Kea, like that adult people should have their consensual freedom, except when you don’t agree?

    SPC, just to be clear are you all adult people should have their consensual freedom including incest?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. SPC (5,392 comments) says:

    Kea, calling an argument one premised on discrimination, when it is, is to state a fact.

    Facts are what they are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    SPC, your discriminating against discrimination, you discriminator you. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Chuck Bird (4,682 comments) says:

    Correction,

    SPC, just to be clear are you saying all adult people should have their consensual freedom including incest?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. SPC (5,392 comments) says:

    Kea, the HRA etc requires us to oppose discrimination.

    The BORA however also allows people their civil liberties, – such freedom of speech, freedom of conscience etc.

    Thus the new marriage law explains to the courts how to see the balance of these things.

    1. same sex marriages can occur
    2. people can oppose these marriages in their exercise of free speech
    3. churches can refuse to host or officiate as an act of conscience (this is explicitly stated), even individual celebrants cannot be required to perform them – not even church celebrants even if their church supports the marriages.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. SPC (5,392 comments) says:

    Chuck, there are limits on adult freedom of action, many professional groups (medical and educational) require no abuse of position for example. One would surmise one reason for the ban on incest is this very concept of abuse of position/influence/status.

    The same thing occurs on all areas of society, restraint on use of insider knowledge in trade etc and fair trade and such.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Chuck Bird (4,682 comments) says:

    SPC, using your logic we should ban heterosexual sex all together as men are in a potions of power according to many feminists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Chuck Bird (4,682 comments) says:

    Correction

    SPC, using your logic we should ban heterosexual sex all together as men are in a positions of power according to many feminists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. SPC (5,392 comments) says:

    Only missionaries and not for as long as they intended. Most feminists practicing shaolin techniques very effectively.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. UpandComer (506 comments) says:

    SPC, I know that. But the fundamental difference for the children of solo mums, divorcees, and single (straight) parents adopting is that the child, while still in a poor substitute for the nuclear family, still at least is nearer then with gay parents, where it is impossible.

    The children of a divorcee still have both biological parents in their lives, fulfilling their parental roles, but with one having less time.

    The child of a solo mum at least had an opportunity for the mum and dad, but the dad for whatever reason has left. That’s bad, but they still can at last have a father later who fulfills the parental role, if not the blood relationship..

    You see how your point is irrelevant? Those are all situations that are poor substitutes, but their genesis doesn’t inherently prevent a child from having a mum and a dad.

    So it’s irrelevant, and actually proves my point since single people very rarely are permitted to adopt, everyone knows the kids of solo mums face a struggle, and divorce isn’t exactly great for children – just like having gay parents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. SPC (5,392 comments) says:

    UpandComer, no it is not irrelevant.

    All children have two parents, where only one and not both are living with the children is the same whatever the reason. Where replacement “fathers”, become partners of mothers there is a higher risk of child abuse. And often the birth fathers are absent from the scene, whether fathering the children by unmarried partners or during a marriage.

    And same sex parents are quite able to arrange for the other birth parent to be involved in the child raising.

    PS Single women use sperm donations to have children, just as lesbians do. Do you want to require that sperm donors be known and involved in the child rearing?

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

    Kea, the HRA etc requires us to oppose discrimination.

    I was opposing discrimination. Yours.

    What you are really saying is the certain selected “victim” groups, named by the left, should receive special rights. Rights not afforded, white middle class hetro males, for example. That is exactly how the HRA works in practise.

    Discrimination is not a bad thing, but those who try to socially engineer us have attempted to portray it so. It simply mean to make a choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. SPC (5,392 comments) says:

    Kea, weally, wot wights don’t you have as a heterosexual male?

    You think wights for others are a left wing idea, coz wight wing males are somehow threatened by others having equality to them?

    Is anyone not a wight wing male claiming equality, “socially engineering” against an established patriarchal privilege. Like votes for women and men of the poor left wing masses who were denied the right to vote because they did not own land or property?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. UpandComer (506 comments) says:

    No SPC it’s not the same where you have children of gay couples. Those children are a condiment. They do not have the opportunity of having the special and crucial blood relationship and the parental figure in one person.

    The children in the other situations you mentioned did at least have this opportunity.

    What message does it send to a child when they have two people bringing them up, and then a third who donated their genetic material is around and about, but not by necessity, but because the gay parents wanted to try out a particular life-style? And that is in the instance of convivial and known relations between the donor and the respective gay couple. I imagine this won’t be the case in most instances.

    Are heterosexual families also complex, yes of course – but the key difference is that they are not inherently so, and the children at least have the opportunity of having the biology and the role tied into one person. And if that isn’t important, then please tell me that throwing a rugby ball around with your dad, the one related by blood who fulfills the roles, is exactly the same as throwing it around with a person who only has one of the two. You would be wrong.

    The major issue I have is the move towards false equivalency between gay couples families and straight couples. The latter is better, for the reasons I’ve discussed. A solo mum, or a divorcee, or a widow(er) gave their kids the opportunity to have a mum and a dad. A gay couple does not. That’s wrong, and that’s why simply making the relationships equivalent on the basis of ‘love’ is spurious, because it abrogates responsibilities towards and the rights of the child.

    You raise the issue of step-dads – yes I agree, they also are a poor substitute and there is scope for abuse. All the cases of broken families in heterosexual settings are also wrong – but we are honest in our judgments of them as being poor substitutes.

    I’m glad you raise the issue of biology because that’s very important. Children will spend a life-time searching out a biological parent, an entire lifetime.

    In the case of single women getting sperm donors (and be honest, that is an absolutely rarified instance) then yes I would imagine the mother should inform the child who their blood relative is. That’s very important.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. SPC (5,392 comments) says:

    UpandComer, and what conclusions do you come to – that same sex couples should not be able to marry, unlike step-dads and the mother of the children? Or that there should be a fertility test before couples marry and those found to be unable to have children together restricted to civil unions?

    That anyone using sperm donation has to know the donor, name the father and let the child know and the sperm donor is required to be act as father. Does this hold true for absent birth father former partners (post break up) or can a step-father replace him where another woman and the mothers brother cannot?

    Do you come to any conclusions that don’t simply single out same sex couples for discrimination?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    SPC, you appear to be channeling Pete George and attributing views to me that I have not expressed and do not hold. If I thought those things I would have said them. In case you have not noticed I am not shy about putting confronting ideas out there. But I guess that was easier for you than speaking to the points I did actually raise.

    At least I am not and atheist AND a communist. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    SPC, you are being deliberately thick (at least I hope it is deliberate).

    To make babies you need a mummy & a daddy. The reasons we have evolved that way are not just biological, but are to do with the childs development.

    If you object to millions and millions of years of evolution, then write a letter to UN or the lodge proceedings under the HRA with mother nature named as the respondent. You can complain to them about how unfair it is a couple of blokes can not make babies. After all, it is there wight.

    I did love the bit about “patriarchal privilege”. Are you posting from Saudi Arabia ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. SPC (5,392 comments) says:

    Kea, so you are unable to defend your 10.21pm post when called on it. You claim to stand by it and yet you disown it at the same time, because the last thing you want to do is debate the point. Ever thought of replacing Dunne in Ohariu?

    Your claim that you are misinterpreted and call this misrepresentation, then apparently try to slander me by association with someone else who has crossed you recently. Are we both channelling your adversary?

    There is a term for those who flinch when they see their own image in a mirror … If you don’t like your posts to be so comprehensively dismissed as my post did, then don’t whinge about it – write better posts.

    PS 1. There are no special rights claimed in the HRA, by definition that is impossible.
    PS 2. Sorry to be stroppy, like a feminist on this, but men don’t whinge. Given you are not a feminist, what are hell are ya?

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

    SPC I have repeatedly and completely defended my position.

    “PS 1. There are no special rights claimed in the HRA, by definition that is impossible.”

    LOL :)

    Oh I see the problem. You are talking about the theory and I am talking about what actually happens in the real world (where people live). Understandable mistake.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. UpandComer (506 comments) says:

    I come to the conclusion that we should be honest about this debate, and the following:

    Marriage is tied to the family, not inherently, but empirically that’s where families tend to arise, and this should be recognised.

    A family with a mum and a dad, tied to the child by biology and fulfilling their roles, is superior to all other models of the family with respect to the child’s experience. Other models, while they can be adequate or even excellent in their own circumstances, all things being equal, are still inferior.

    Gay marriage is an argument that gay families are exactly the same in nature to the traditional family. For the reasons I’ve outlined, this is a false equivalency. We should be honest about this, like we are with divorcees, solo mums, step families, and all those other things you’ve mentioned. That’s just an honest assessment. Adopting couples who do so because they are infertile would rather they could have children, and the child wishes they could have parents who are their blood relation.
    Solo mums bringing up a kid on their own, probably wish they had the kids biological father there, fulfilling his role as he should etc. All of these models are substitutes.

    Where is the discrimination? Gay relationships are already recognised with equal legal recognition under civil unions. If you have completely equal legal recognition, then why try and make a false equivalency by proxy about families?

    I am actually in favour of civil unions, and I have no issues with gay couples, people, and communities living out their lives as they see fit in those communities. However, when the question of children arises, then there is a third actor in the picture whose rights need to also be recognised and addressed, and this is being swept under the rug, and this is by design.

    In relation to infertile couples, what distinguishes them from a gay couple with respect to children and marriage?

    Well, there is a man, and a woman, fulfilling their parental roles without the biology element, just one of each, mum and dad. They probably wish they could have their own children, but they can’t, but they at least provide the other element. In a gay couple, they inherently cannot provide the biological link between both parents. They basically contract out for that biology, and it’s given to them. What does the child have? Well, it gets two parents of the same sex fulfilling a parental role, one of whom has the biology, and the contractor. Unless the marriage is between three people, which I understand isn’t allowed even by supporters of gay marriage, the child is going to miss out on one sex playing the parental role.

    In the case of sperm donors, be honest and admit that that is a poor substitute for the nuclear family, where dad isn’t just his sperm. If a woman gets a sperm donation, you tell me, what do you think the child deserves in that instance? If a child simply shouldn’t be told, that is a very strong argument against gay parents. As I said, people spend their entire lives searching for their biological parents. TV programs, very dramatic and affecting, help adults even in their 60′s do this, because it’s important to children, and remember, they’re also part of the act. Maybe the sperm donor doesn’t want to fulfill the parental role, and that’s pretty gutting to the kid. But just remember, this undesirable situation is inherently required under gay marriage if the parents want to be related, and that to me seems very unfair on the child.

    SPC you can’t square the circle I’m afraid. Some things really are different.

    In the case of absentee dads, please listen carefully to my point. How does the ideal step-dad differ from another woman and the mother’s brother?

    Well in relation to the mum’s friend, the step-dad is a man. He brings the opportunity for the child to have the parental role of a father if not the biological relationship that really enriches the experience.

    In relation to the mother’s brother, it is different because the nature of the relationship between the mother and the step-father is different. The child gets the experience of a mum and a dad, in a relationship, not a mum and a brother, where the dynamics, the context and the nature of the relationship is very different.

    So yes, an ideal step-dad is superior for the child’s experience, all other things being equal, then another random woman, or the mum’s brother. Of course the latter is better then having just a solo-mum, but then again that requires you to concede that not every situation is equal, some things are just substitutes.

    You see I keep bringing it back to the child having the opportunity to have a mum, and a dad, fulfilling their parental roles. That’s something every child should at least have the opportunity to have, and this is denied in the case of a gay couple. In all other instances it is not inherently impossible, and we still recognise them as poor substitutes to a superior model.

    That’s why I can distinguish every example you give me, that’s why I can reasonably argue that all other models to the traditional family are merely substitutes making do with their own particular circumstances, but inferior all things being equal. That’s why I can say that I don’t think gay marriage should be allowed, because marriage is where children happen, gay couples are going to want children, and this is not fair for that third actor.

    Okay SPC? This is not discrimination. Consenting adults can do what they like. The situation changes when you consider the rights and responsibilities of adults towards children.

    And if we are going to say that sometimes the substitute is still better then an awful present circumstance, lets be honest about it, and not engage in this spurious false equivalency, and also not throw about words like ‘discrimination’ and ‘bigot’. I’ve taken the time to explain myself, not just say you are bigoted against straight families.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. SPC (5,392 comments) says:

    Kea, “should receive special rights. Rights not afforded, white middle class hetro males, for example”

    Begging for special rights for white middle class (what is hetro?) males is the sort of thing done in a certain sort of room where women carrying whips play dominant mummy and teach bad boy a lesson.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. UpandComer (506 comments) says:

    I’ve had quite enough thinking about this stupid non-issue. Gays, actual gays, make up about 3% of the population, not 25%, and I am very grateful that my parents are a) still married and b) I get to experience a mum, and a dad, not just two parents.

    Gays can do what the hell they like, they have equal rights, and that’s fine. But be real about it when there are children involved, and what is fair in terms of their opportunities to experience the most fundamental fucking relationship in life.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. SPC (5,392 comments) says:

    Kea

    “To make babies you need a mummy & a daddy. The reasons we have evolved that way are not just biological, but are to do with the childs development.”

    Are you claiming some higher being planned nuclear families for humans – because this is not universal in the natural world – the rearing across species is variable (some mummies eat daddies to feed the young). If so whom?

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

    SPC. No.

    I was claiming evolution. Which is why I said evolution and not some “higher being”.

    But let me play your game, just for laughs.

    Are you claiming inter species marriage is a right under the HRA ? I think you must be, because you have raised the issue of other species mating behaviour in the context of a debate about homosexual human relationships. I can not see any other possible link. It looks like those hysterical christians were right again and soon people will be marrying goats. Gay goats too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. SPC (5,392 comments) says:

    Kea, then what do you mean by evolution in the sense, not limited to biology?

    Do you mean anthropological development, then you dismiss extended family etc. Other species developed different parenting after father/mother conception than nuclear family.

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

    SPC asks (what is hetro?)

    It is a common abbreviation for Heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is a romantic attraction, sexual attraction or behavior between persons of opposite sex or gender.

    Are you sure you are not out of your depth here SPC ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. SPC (5,392 comments) says:

    Google referred me to hetero, wonder why?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. SPC (5,392 comments) says:

    UpandComer, I was merely interested as to whether you were making the case that a couple who could not be a father and mother should be denied marriage or not.

    And if so

    1. whether this would apply to all such couples, or just a specific type (whether civil union was the option for some others or all others)
    2. and if the reason was for the sake of the children – how denying same sex couples the right to marry would have any impact on how and by whom children were raised up? Or whether they would be used as the excuse to block support for same sex marriage without reducing the number of children raised by other than their mother AND father.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. SPC (5,392 comments) says:

    Kea, is not hetro, the sort of metro who probably goes to mens rights groups?

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

    SPC,

    Evolution is not limited by biology in the sense that behaviours are part of evolution. Actually the two interact, but lets keep it simple.

    There are sound and well understood reasons why we form the relationships we do. It explains extended family and why we have a sense of community. It is not especially hard to understand. It is to do with giving our genes the best chance of survival. Our gay friends are not directly part of that, not because I say so, but because nature says so. However many gay people have made great contributions to human kind and have contributed that way, though their sexuality was not the contribution they made.

    I am not interested in what “other species” do and are growing a bit alarmed at your interest in them.

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

    “Google referred me to hetero, wonder why?”

    You wonder a lot of self evident things SPC, it is part of your charm. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. SPC (5,392 comments) says:

    Kea, behaviours included polygamy and or extended family, not just single mother parent and single father parent upbringing. Your resort to idealising the latter to join the camp of those opposing same sex marriage rights just shows that the Vatican was right to exploit the children to turn the atheists into camp followers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. UpandComer (506 comments) says:

    Yes I understood that SPC.

    In relation to your first statement, they should not be denied, and I distinguished an infertile from a gay couple very clearly.

    On Civil unions, they are an option for everyone, but to my mind are ‘the’ option for gay couples, and marriage is denied them.

    In relation to children, yes I think they are a reason to stop gay marriage/adoption, and yes that action will affect the number of children being raised by substitutes of the superior nuclear model favourably.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. SPC (5,392 comments) says:

    UpandComer, of course you do realise that denying same sex couples marriage would not change the number of children being raised by same sex couples and or others.

    Same sex couples can adopt unrelated children as individuals now, and their partner shares in the parenting afterwards. The number is only about 1 child of the 50 unrelated children available for adoption each year.

    The interesting thing about the alliance against same sex marriage

    1. religious conservatives who oppose same sex activity and see marriage as a holy sacrament and who would never marry a divorced person or approve of (unnatural/artificial) contraception or fertility treatment.
    2. those who see marriage as between a couple capable of procreating life and being a father and mother parenting team
    3. those who see a marriage as between a man and a women, regardless of fertility or intent to have children (or prior divorce)

    is how much it is in accord with Roman Chapter 1, where Creator God faith is associated with procreative sexuality and idolatry with homosexuality.

    How many people seeking to restrict same sex couples to civil unions supported them being established?

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.