Still husband and wife, not just spouses
March 1st, 2013 at 9:00 am by David FarrarSome people are saying that The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, as reported back by the Select Committee will remove husband and wife from the Marriage Act and people will just legally be spouses.
This is incorrect.
The Marriage Act 1955 currently refers to husbands and wives in two main sections, and both are unaffected by the Bill. The first is S31(3) which says:
During the solemnisation of every such marriage each party must say to the other—
(a)
“I AB, take you CD, to be my legal wife or husband”; or
(b)words to similar effect; or
(c)in the case of the solemnisation of a marriage in accordance with the rules and procedures of a specified body that require different words to be used as a marriage vow than those set out in paragraph (a), those words.
Again, this section is totally unchanged by the bill. The requirement to refer wife or husband (or similiar words) is unchanged.
The other section is s33(2) which is about marriages before the Registrar.
During the solemnisation of every such marriage each party to it shall declare:
I solemnly declare that I do not know of any impediment to this marriage between me AB and CD, And shall say to the other party: I call on the people present here to witness that I, AB, take you, CD, to be my legal wife (or husband), or words to similar effect.
This section is also unchanged.
In a section to the Act on forbidden marriages, there is a schedule of people whom a man can not marry and a schedule of people whom a woman can not marry. The two separate lists are now combined into one, so rather than saying you can not marry your wife’s mother or husband’s father it now says your spouse’s parent. No big deal. This change is only to the schedule of forbidden marriages and is not a change to the main Act which still refers to husband and wife.
The Bill does make what is called consequential amendments to 15 other acts, which for the sake of convenience the term spouse is used.
The term husband is actually used in a total of 67 Acts of Parliament. It remains in the Marriage Act, and remains in the vast majority of Acts. It is not being removed from the Marriage Act, and it is not being removed from the law books. All that is happening in in a few Acts the term spouse is being used because it is more convenient.
And you know what – the term “spouse” is already used in 136 Acts of Parliament!
So no the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill does not remove the term “husband and wife” from the law books. It doesn’t remove it from the Marriage Act. It doesn’t introduce the term spouse into the law as a replacement – the term is already used in 136 Acts of Parliament. This issue is a red herring.
Related posts:
- Ministerial spouses paying their own way
- Marriage Bill reported back
- UK Minister’s husband claims porn movies as expenses
- PM says gay marriage doesn’t affect his marriage to Bronagh
March 1st, 2013 at 9:08 am
Presumably the supporters of the re-definition of marriage are outraged by this continuing discrimination. Yes? Hello?
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 9:11 am
As the prohibited schedule items would prevent inbreeding, which is a principal source of fundamentalists, presumably the opponents of marriage equality are upset at this cruel limitation on reproduction of their constituency. Yes and hello
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 9:11 am
Hark…..the distant rattle of the rosary beads warming up!
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 9:14 am
Damn, and I’ve been thinking up so many ‘new’ names that I could refer to him as.
Interesting to know what is on that schedule? I presume it is close relation stuff, although royalty have been doing it for centuries. Are there any surprises on there?
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 9:17 am
Another rubbish argument by the opponents of gay marriage.
It’s clearly time to put this whole issue aside. It is a done deal. Same-sex marriage will become law. Quoting scripture or raising arguments about who gets to be called “husband” or “wife” will not change the inevitable.
And just like civil rights, womens suffrage, the 1986 reform, civil unions etc, once this is passed everyone knows it will never be reversed. Everyone will pretty quickly forget it and move on to the next big issue.
If you are strongly against gay marriage, I’m sure it sucks knowing that you have lost. But if it makes you feel better to try to reason with the tide why it should not come in, then no harm done.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 9:17 am
…Right??
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 9:20 am
I hope todays homo’s remember these times when other people are keen to amend the marriage law to allow people who are in incestuous relationships to be married as without it they simple wont feel like they are equals in societies eyes.
Then of course there are those who are in loving relationships with under-aged kids….I mean why shouldn’t a 12 year old be allowed to marry a 30yr old its only natural, and they can’t help how they feel for each other……I could go on but it will only get sicker.
March 1st, 2013 at 9:25 am
The only thing sick is someone who compares a relationship between consenting adults of the same sex, to pedophilia.
March 1st, 2013 at 9:30 am
All this goes to show is that our ruling elites live in a fantasy land and have the hubris to believe that they can with a stroke of the legislative pen upend nature, the cultural artifacts that entirety of human history have ensured the continuation of the species just to pander to the vanities of a few effete upper middle class sexually confused wastrels.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 9:35 am
Poor @mikemikemikemike and @Andrei the world must be such a scary place for you
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 9:41 am
I completely agree. And I hope, but I’m not certain, that this outrage will be commonly felt in 50 years time.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 9:43 am
I think what your hearing is the rattle of anal beads nasska
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 9:47 am
All this goes to show that our would-be moral guardians live in a fantasy world and have the hubris to believe that the rest of us aren’t conversant with their romanticisation and sanitisation of history which includes inconvenient things like early Protestant approval of polygamy (ie Martin Luther), Catholic toleration of concubinage within European societies, and the cultural artefacts like the existence of castrati in papal and ecclesiastical choirs until the nineteenth century. And eunuchs within ancient Byzantium and Tsarist Russia, for that matter. Ah, ain’t gender and sexuality a curious thing.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 9:49 am
I’m not always a big details person. And unfortunately DPF has made me get into the weeds. But what Family first says is absolutely correct-the words husband and wife are being replaced by spouse in key parts of legislation that are related to marriage.
At the risk of being tedious they are here –
Marriage (Definition of Marriage)
Vote:Amendment Bill Schedule 2
Schedule 2 s 7
Consequential amendments
Part 1
Consequential amendments to other Acts
Adoption Act 1955 (1955 No 93) 5
In section 2, definition of adoptive parent, replace “a husband and
wife” with “a married couple”.
In section 2, definition of adoptive parent, replace “the husband and
wife” with “the spouses”.
In section 7(2)(b), replace “a husband or a wife” with “spouse”. 10
In section 16(2)(a), replace “husband” with “spouse”.
In section 16(2)(i), replace “husband” with “spouse”.
Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act
1995 (1995 No 16)
Repeal section 30(2). 15
In section 55(1)(a)(ii), replace “the husband, the wife” with “each
spouse”.
In section 55(2)(a), replace “the husband and wife” with “each
spouse”.
In section 55(2)(a)(ii), replace “the husband, the wife,” with “each 20
spouse”.
In section 55(3)(a)(ii), replace “the husband, the wife” with “each
spouse”.
In section 83(2), delete “30(2),”.
Child Support Act 1991 (1991 No 142) 25
In section 47(3)(a), replace “husband and wife” with “married couple”.
Crimes Act 1961 (1961 No 43)
In section 24(3), replace “husband” with “spouse”.
In section 366(2), replace “his wife or her husband” with “his or her 30
husband or wife”.
5Schedule 2
Marriage (Definition of Marriage)
Amendment Bill
Part 1—continued
Family Proceedings Act 1980 (1980 No 94)
In section 2, definition of child of the marriage, replace paragraph
(a) with:
“(a) in relation to a marriage (other than a void marriage)—
“(i) means a child of both spouses together; and 5
“(ii) includes, in relation to any proceedings under
this Act, a child (whether or not a child of either
spouse) who was a member of the family of the
spouses at the time when they ceased to live together or at the time immediately preceding the 10
institution of the proceedings, whichever first occurred; and”.
In section 24(1)(a), replace “husband and the wife” with “married
couple”.
In section 24(1)(a), replace “husband and wife” with “a married cou- 15
ple”.
In section 24(2), replace “the husband or wife” with “either spouse”.
In section 64A(4), replace “the husband and wife” with “the spouses
or partners”.
In section 94, replace “husband and the wife” with “married couple”. 20
Joint Family Homes Act 1964 (1964 No 45)
In section 2, definition of husband and wife, after “this Act”, insert
“; andeveryreference inthis Act toahusbandand wife mustbe taken
to include any 2 people (of any sex) who are married”.
Judicature Act 1908 (1908 No 89) 25
In Schedule 2, rule 6.4(1)(a), replace “husband and wife” with “a
married couple”.
Land Transfer Act 1952 (1952 No 52)
In section 89E(g), after “husband and wife”, insert “(as defined in
that Act)”. 30
Maori Vested Lands Administration Act 1954 (1954 No 60)
In section 30(2), replace “husband and wife” with “spouses”.
6Marriage (Definition of Marriage)
Amendment Bill Schedule 2
Part 1—continued
Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (1976 No 166)
In section 1C(2), replace “marriage between the husband and wife or
the civil union between the civil union partners or the de facto relationship between the de facto partners” with “marriage, civil union,
or de facto relationship”. 5
In section 1G, replace “a husband and wife or civil union partners or
de facto partners” with “spouses, civil union partners, and de facto
partners”.
In section 1K, replace “a husband and wife” with “spouses”.
In section 1M(b), replace “husband and wife” with “both spouses”. 10
In section 2A(2), replace “a husband and wife” with “2 people”.
Insection2A(2)(a), replace “ashusbandand wife” with“as a married
couple”.
In section 2B, replace “the husband (A) and the wife (B)” with “the
2 spouses (A and B)”. 15
In section 2BA(a), replace “the husband and the wife” with “the
spouses”.
Replace section 2E(1)(a) with:
“(a) in relation to a marriage or civil union, a marriage or
civil union in which the spouses or partners have lived 20
together in the marriage or civil union—
“(i) for a period of less than 3 years; or
“(ii) for a period of 3 years or longer, if the court, having regard to all the circumstances of the marriage or civil union, considers it just to treat the 25
marriage or civil union as a relationship of short
duration:”.
Repeal section 2E(1)(ab).
In section 2E(2), delete “, (ab)(i),”.
In section 2E(2), replace “husband and wife” with “a married cou- 30
ple”.
In section 4(3)(b), replace “husband and wife” with “spouses”.
In section 8(1)(c), replace “husband and the wife” with “married couple”.
7Schedule 2
Marriage (Definition of Marriage)
Amendment Bill
Part 1—continued
Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (1976 No 166)—continued
In section 9(4)(a), replace “husband and wife” with “a married couple”.
In section 21(1), replace “A husband and wife” with “Spouses”.
In section 21A(1), replace “A husband and wife” with “Spouses”.
In section 25(2)(a)(i), replace “husband and wife” with “spouses”. 5
In section 52A(3), replace “husband and wife” with “a married couple”.
Social Security Act 1964 (1964 No 136)
In section 63(b), replace “husband and wife any man and woman”
with “married any 2 people”. 10
In section 151(1), replace “husband and wife” with “married”.
Status of Children Act 1969 (1969 No 18)
In section 14(1), definition of partner, replace “husband” with
“spouse” in each place.
Summary Proceedings Act 1957 (1957 No 87) 15
In section 67(5), replace “his wife or her husband” with “his or her
husband or wife”.
Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 (1993 No 4)
Insection296(3), replace “husbandand wife” with“marriedcouple”.
Part 2 20
Consequential amendments to regulations
Land Act Regulations 1949 (SR 1949/37)
In regulation 5, replace “wife or widow” with “spouse or surviving
spouse”.
March 1st, 2013 at 9:50 am
Come to think of it, wasn’t youthful marriage routinely carried out amongst the medieval royal families of Europe, even if thankfully consummation was some years later…at fourteen or fifteen
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:00 am
How exactly?
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:00 am
Andrei (1,886) Says:
March 1st, 2013 at 9:30 am
——————————-
Nature allows homosexuality, in fact a report done a couple of years back stated that a very high percentage of NZ rams took part in homosexual activity and often formed life-long relationships with other rams. (No, not the sports team).
Anyone who has lived on a farm, even diary farms will know that ‘nature’ is not specific or judgmental by requiring its animals are heterosexual. It appears that even ‘she’ accepts that that relationships for ‘love/companionship’ are as important as the need to continue to the species. (Although I do accept that such relationships, like the raping of young bulls probably has other purposes in nature that has nothing to do with ‘friendship’)
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:03 am
No ,not the distant rattling of rosary beads,more like the rattling trundle of the guillotine to behead any opponents of the relentless “equality” revolution.
Too bad chardongay guys’ pparents weren’t on the prohibited list too. Inbred fucker.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:05 am
If you are talking about me David I didn’t compare the two, I simply made the point that in time if there are sectors of society that wish for a similar change or ‘acceptance’ from society then I would hope that those benefitting from this law change will support their bid for ‘equality’.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:07 am
kowtow, your being dramatic.
There is no need for the definition of marriage to change in YOUR eyes. Our conservative christians friends can maitain their current view of what marriage means (to them) and I encourage them to do so. They should take ownership of their beliefs and not look to central government to impose legistlation instructing them on morality.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:09 am
That is still the age of consent over most the world. You need to look beyond your white liberal eurocentric world mate.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:10 am
I also don’t give a shit what any law says….I’m a Husband and a Father, and a fucking good one at that. I’m married to my Wife who does an astonishing job at being a Mother.
We are not rainbow partners who are working at being equal spouses in a civil partnership…..
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:11 am
I honestly cannot see why this scares Andrei so much.
Andrei – YOU don’t have to have gay sex. Your children don’t have to have gay sex. Nothing about you or your marriage will change.
Boggles the mind why you give a shit
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:12 am
queer street foamer
It will be reversed! When Muslim immigration reaches the point of no return.
Think it can’t happen?
Egypt was majority Christian Copt for centuries after the Arab conquest,till a wave of Arab migration around 12 -13 Century.Now Christians are a 10% oppressed minority.
“Turkey” used to be Asia Minor and was Greek. Constantinople is now called Istanbul. The Greeks and Armenians expelled and murdered.
Libya ,the coastal cities, anyway were Greek and Roman. Where did the name Tripoli come from? It’s not Arab.
In the meantime enjoy your “equality”,while it lasts. Allahu Akbar.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:13 am
>the words husband and wife are being replaced by spouse in key parts of legislation
Kind of thinking a big fat ‘so what?’ if they are. Husband/spouse, wife/spouse are already interchangeable words.
Vote:And legal wording doesn’t stop anyone calling the person they are married to whatever they want to.
March 1st, 2013 at 10:13 am
Good for you. What is your point ?
The proposed legistlation will not change the nature of YOUR marriage. Relax.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:14 am
kea
Dramatic?
I’m responding to that wanker nasska and his constant fucking anti catholic barracking.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:17 am
kowtow, ignore him. Keep calm and carry on. Lead by example. I say that as an atheist myself.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:18 am
Then what is the point of changing it. Surely if the change does not affect me as a husband and a father then how does it impact a man living with a man??
As much as this helps gays feel a big part of society, I think it waters down my identity and serves to isolate me from it (because I refuse to happily support it)
This is all about minorities feeling good about themselves at the expense of the majority.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:23 am
Feel the Christian love.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:24 am
You must have a very weak sense of identity regarding your sexuality. Personally the proposal has no effect on my identity or my view of marriage.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:24 am
You might as well have gotten rid of the marriage act and left it as ‘How to divide your shit up if your ambiguous (because we wouldn’t want to offend anyone) relationship has ended’ legislation.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:26 am
Yeah nasska. Ya just a wanker eh.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:28 am
I’m married. If we widen the definition of married to include same-sex couples, polygamists and polyandrysts, it won’t impact me. I’ll still be married.
I’m a New Zealander. If we widen the definition of New Zealander to include anyone who sets foot here, it won’t impact me. I’ll still be a New Zealander.
I’m an accountant. If we widen the definition of accountant to include anyone with a calculator, it won’t impact me. I’ll still be an accountant.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:31 am
I don’t know why the law even mentions marriage. The state should be concerned only with civil unions and legal obligations flowing from them (mostly now covering de facto relationships too of course).
Vote:Marriage as a concept should be left to the churches.
We were married many years ago in the registry office and I have always regarded the ritual as a state requirement (in those days to protect me and any children) rather than some kind of sacrament.
OK for those who want the supernatural involved but the law should separate the two the way the French do.
March 1st, 2013 at 10:33 am
kea
I have no problem with atheists.
Nasska, dawanker and one or two others spend an inordinate amount of time, while pretending to be respectful libertarians,simply insulting Catholics.
Nasska in particular passes himself off as a comedian.He must spend hours trawling the internet for his anti catholic jokes ,which he then pollutes this blog with practically every night. He thinks thats funny.Sad fucker.
Hypocritical fucking wankers.
“Feel the Christian love”……go fuck yerself!
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:34 am
Yes, but how do we decide WHICH partner will be the “husband” and which the “Wife”? Will it be arbitrary?
I was on a crowded bus in Sydney recently, and a beefy short bald guy with a tight white tee was chatting rather loudly on his cel phone next to me, and he said , “but I’m his wife!” I also remember Jim Bolger’s office once invited Hon. Margaret Shields “and wife” to a state function. An Oops then, but no longer? I could get this with Steve Chadwick, but “Margaret”?
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:35 am
When did I talk about this being about sexuality? I am objecting to the change in legislation that I made a solemn vow before a JP before, being changed to make people feel good. And as you rightly point out, for what?
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:36 am
You’re a Christian. If we widen the definition of Christian to anyone who wears a cross it won’t impact on me. I’ll still not wear a cross.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:36 am
More seriously, this has been a revelation for me.
I see no mention of legislation allowing “snooky pie”. Does that mean the use of that term will be banned?
If so the world really is going to hell in a handbasket.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:37 am
So David, is a husband a man or a woman? And a wife, is that a man or a woman?
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:40 am
kowtow
I don’t pretend to be anything and certainly I’ve never claimed to be a libertarian. But I’m intrigued as to why you pretend to be a Christian.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:40 am
It would be better to abolish marriage altogether than to persist in this abomination.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:41 am
Husbands and wives will still continue to be husbands and wives. The introduction of marriage equality will simply mean that we have husbands and husbands, or wives and wives as well.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:42 am
Marriage is a universal human institution – who gave the Government the right to change it?
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:43 am
Anyone who has lived on a farm, even diary farms will know that ‘nature’ is not specific or judgmental by requiring its animals are heterosexua
Judith, I have lived on a farm all my life and I can assure you that just because cows come on heat and “ride” each other does not mean that they are homosexual
In truth, I do not believe that there is any homosexuality in the animal kingdom. It’s only us humans who can be so perverse.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:44 am
Oh, for goodness sake. Look, the Christian Right will still be able to attack euthanasia and physician assisted suicide and probably keep it illegal in the event of the passage of marriage equality, because apart from transgender legislative equality, the LGBT legislative reform programme will have concluded in triumph, apart from some anti-bullying and suicide prevention work and the quest to find a vaccine against HIV/AIDS.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:45 am
This is not about equality.That is a lie.
Equality means that a Muslim or African or Tibetan should be able to marry as many women as his culture/religion allows.
Indeed a father or mother should be allowed to marry their children ,after the age of consent. After all it’s not about the offspring from that union the equalitites keep telling us,it’s about the relationship………. yeah right.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:46 am
“Marriage is a universal human institution only for whom I approve”
Isn’t this what you meant?
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:48 am
“I do not believe that there is any homosexuality in the animal kingdom.”
Oh no?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:51 am
Well Contrarian I wonder how well Jeremy and Nigel’s freshly minted New Zealand marriage certificate will go down in Saudi Arabia?
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:53 am
Who gives a shit about Saudi Arabia.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:56 am
Lol life in the dark ages among the illiterate.
In the days when people were educated rather than indoctrinated as they are today everybody would know that “homo” is the Latin for man – ie homosexuality means sex between men and by definition you cannot have “homosexual cows”.
Wikipedia eh?
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:56 am
kowtow – that goes to the point of my first comment.
The Marriage Act has a big list of prohibitions (aka ‘discrimination’) on who can marry who.
Those that justify gay marriage on the basis of removal of discrimination should be prepared to justify polygamy, marrying relatives etc on the same basis.
But they don’t, presumably because resorting to a sexual health defence is a very, very shaky bridge for them
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:57 am
DPF – “…..The only thing sick is someone who compares a relationship between consenting adults of the same sex, to pedophilia…”
You might wish to add to that!
There are a lot of HUSBANDS/MEN and WIFES/WOMEN who are not able to have children and who currently think that the ‘ideal’ for a transvestite to become a ‘barren women/wife’ or ‘infertile man/husband’ is despicable -or in your words DPF- SICK: This is courtesy of NZ Health Dept Legislation.
THAT IS THE FUCKEN SICKNESS THAT IS SWEEPING THROUGH OUR CURRENT PARLIMENT AND SOCIETY COURTESY OF THE LGBT ACTIVISTS!
Some MP’S have no shame in suggesting that being ‘barren’ is ideal!
The Conservative Party IS going to unseat several low ranking list members from Labour and National via the party vote!
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 11:01 am
Andrei – that is most facile comment I have ever seen you make.
Of course there is no human sex between animals you idiot. That’s like saying there are no cows who are homosapians.
Fine then, if you wanna be a child – there are volumes of recorded male/male sexual activity in a wide variety of species.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 11:03 am
This is what the Gay Rights Agenda from 1972 (which has never been changed) says about marriage – what they ultimately want –
http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/onetime/bl_platform1972.htm
They don’t really care about marriage, so to speak. It has nothing to do with rights, civil or otherwise, or any sort of justice. They want to create this polymorphous society where anything goes. If you don’t think same-sex marriage is a step towards this, then you are completely blind.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 11:04 am
kowtow
…”No ,not the distant rattling of rosary beads,more like the rattling trundle of the guillotine to behead any opponents of the relentless “equality” revolution.”…..
Sweat not! If I’m on duty when your appointment with “Madame Guillotine” is rostered I’ll sharpen the blade & grease the runners to ensure your end is as quick & pain free as possible.
As an atheist yet humane proponent of the “equality” revolution it’s the least I can do.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 11:09 am
Sorry, I must have missed something. Since when do religious sects get to impose their particular sectarian public policy preferences without debate or dissent? New Zealand isn’t a theocracy, and civil marriage has existed in this country since 1847. And religious institutions therefore do not “own” or monopolise marriage- in fact, most straight people dispense with the “need” for religious authorisation and get married in registry offices these days.
“Natural law theory” is a sectarian, conservative Catholic invention. It was created by Thomas Aquinas in the twelfth century and based on the frameworks devised by Plato, Aristotle and Augustine beforehand. Sectarian religious dogma is just that, sectarian religious dogma. Members of particular denominations, sects or faiths can follow it, or not if they feel that it is unjust and discriminatory (ie the good folk within Christians for Marriage Equality). However, in a pluralist and democratic society, they have no right to compell others who do not share the doctrines of their particular sects, dominations or faiths to follow it.
Meaningful religious freedom consists of the rights to religious assembly and association, speech and doctrine, worship, belief and conscience. However, when it comes to religious practise, there need to be reasonable limits placed, given that some forms of religious practise are inimical to the rights and liberties of others.
In Canada and the United States, schismatic “Mormon” polygamists use “religious liberty” arguments that recognise no such limits to religious practise, as do Santeria worshippers who are free to mutilate small animals in the name of their faith.
And as for Andrei’s point, might I recommend that he peruse Bruce Bagemihl’s Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (New York: St Martins: 1999). Gender diversity and same-sex relationships are quite common amongst birds and animals, as well as humans.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 11:09 am
@Fletch
That’s like saying because Christians in Uganda want to stone all homosexuals to death then that is part of the Christian agenda.
Vote:Use the brain your god gave you.
March 1st, 2013 at 11:17 am
And insofar as the ruminations of ephmeral, radical gay liberationist groups from the sixties go, who cares, apart from conspiracy theorists who try to present as the musings of a Vast Gay-Wing Conspiracy. Or, to put it more facetiously,
“Help! I’m being chased down a darkened corridor by Giant Maori Lesbian Deconstructionist MMP Supporting Beneficiary Disabled devils waving sharpened pitchforks!!!” Presumably all doing the conga…
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 11:19 am
Shoddygayguy#
“….Gender diversity and same-sex relationships are quite common amongst birds and animals, as well as humans….”
That is no reason for you or anyone else to identify with being a dog Chardonayguy.
However if you think you must, then you would have no objection if I said you were the ‘runt’ of your parents ‘litter’?
And you can’t complain IDIOT – as dogs don’t!
Fuck you are stupid!
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 11:19 am
CG, marriage between a man and a woman has always been around, even as far back as Biblical times. Marriage is mentioned in the Bible.
Catholics believe marriage is a religious concept designed by God before any government existed, before any law of man had been written. Marriage is God’s idea. Catholics believe it is not for us as humans to tamper with. The word “Marriage” appears all over the New Testament (Mat 22:30, 24:38, Mk 12:25, Lk 2:36, 17:27, 20:34-35, 1 Co 7:38, 2 Co 11:2, 1 Ti 4:3, Heb 13:4, Rev 19:7, 19:9) and it is clearly drawn out as a relationship between one man and one woman.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 11:24 am
“CG, marriage between a man and a woman has always been around, even as far back as Biblical times. Marriage is mentioned in the Bible.”
Who gives a shit what the bible says. Just because you do doesn’t mean the rest of us have too.
(and open homosexuality predates your bible.)
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 11:24 am
Religious folk do themselves no favours by focusing so much on sexuality.
There is a lot of bad shit going on in the world today. Yet we do not see KB’s resident christians expressing anywhere near the same level of concern about genocide, torture, starvation and a raft of other evils. Instead they are more interested in what a couple of poofs are up to.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 11:28 am
ChardonnayGuide Dog #
So if someone then thinks that they are a ‘dog’ inside a human’s body – then doctors should by ‘your reasoning’ remove two ribs from each side so the man/dog can lick his balls?
Fuck you really are stupid shaggydog!
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 11:31 am
I tend to agree with The Contrarian on this one. I do not regard either the Old Testament and New Testament as authentic and valid historical accounts of specific historical periods, otherwise we wouldn’t have the “Historical Jesus” and “Historical Israel” controversies in serious Middle East archaeological and ancient historical scholarship. And merely because a particular faith states something is forbidden within its sacred texts does not compell those of us who do not follow such texts to follow or obey it. It is not the law of the land.
And Harriet? At least I’m not a cow…
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 11:32 am
For effects of same-sex marriage, we only have to look at Canada where it has been legal for a decade –
It will happen here, too.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 11:33 am
There is a lot of bad shit going on in our country today. Kids being tortured and murdered by their whanau. Yet we do not see our parliamentarians working towards solving this. Instead they are engaged in rewriting a bunch of laws that have served for generations to form families where children are raised in safety and security by their parents, Changing these laws for reasons beyond the comprehension of folks who have retained their sanity
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 11:35 am
Andrei…is that why Family First wants to waste additional time and money on the Government Administration select committee having to sit through endless form letters on either side of the marriafe equality debate? Hello? What about Novopay, what about asset sales, what about Christchurch reconstruction and so on.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 11:37 am
Who gives a shit what the bible says?
The founding fathers of the USA did.Declaration of Independence. We hold that all men were created equal……endowed by their Creator.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 11:41 am
Insofar as wedding receptions go, it is the case that even before the introduction of marriage equality, it was against the law to discriminate against individuals on the basis of accomodation, employment or service provision discrimination due to the Canadian Human Rights Act. Why do sectarian religious individuals appear to want special rights to discriminate, even if they are employed in avowedly secular occupations (although exceptions exist for ordained ministers of faith). In terms of professional organisations, those associations often state public policy on the basis of cumulative evidence-based research.
If sectarian religious professionals want to voice their religious prejudices on those issues and misrepresent the findings of evidence-based scientific and medical research to the contrary amongst mainstream professionals, or engage in serious professional misconduct in the process, then they have to expect that they will accordingly be censured by their associations.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 11:42 am
I do not regard either the Old Testament and New Testament as authentic and valid historical accounts of specific historical periods,
Oh, because you’re a Biblical historian? Any historian worth their salt considers the Bible the most accurate historical book we have.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 11:45 am
And if you’d been paying attention instead of just yelling EUW! YUCK! HOMOSEXUALS! NO! BAN THEM! YUCKY HOMOSEXUALS!! you might have noticed that the bill being developed here specifically prevents those problems…?
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 11:45 am
Kowtow, many of the US Founding Fathers were Unitarians, Quakers or Deists, not all of whom share the quaint fundamentalist belief in the historical inerrancy or veracity of the Bible.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 11:45 am
“The founding fathers of the USA did.Declaration of Independence. We hold that all men were created equal……endowed by their Creator.”
Not all of them, some were deist and others outright rejected organised religion. And note ‘endowed by THEIR creator”.
Not ‘the’ creator, nor ‘our’ creator.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 11:49 am
No, they don’t, Fletch. For example, Sodom and Gomorrah was a fairy tale. There has been no evidence of vulcanism, seismic disturbance, meteor impacts or any of the other convoluted ‘reasons’ for the ‘destruction’ of the mythical cities of the plain in the specified geographic areas, during the historical period in question.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 11:50 am
The Protect Marriage site has scans of the old and (what would be the) new Marriage Certificate. ‘Bride’ and ‘Bridegroom’ are now blanked out entirely.
http://www.protectmarriage.org.nz/archives/bride-bridegroom-removed-from-marriage-certificates
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 11:50 am
Not to mention the entirety of Genesis
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 11:51 am
An argument so powerful, I think we need to see it again…
WTF?
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 11:54 am
Damn, the frothing at the mouth by the over zealous Mrs H is enough to curdle my ovaries…
Anyhow… As its been said countless times, what CONSENTING ADULTS do, in the privacy of their home is their business. How they wish to label their relationship is their own business.
Doesn’t change that I’m a 50 year old single mum and happy to be so
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 12:02 pm
CG, actually there is evidence of sulphur and brimstone. These two sites alone mention the findings.
Google for many more.
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htm
http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48931527.html
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 12:02 pm
c#ntrarian
You capitalise THEIR
but the capitals belong in God and Creator,mentioned in said document.
You left the capital c out of Creator.And you left out God altogether.
You are decietful.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 12:05 pm
Anyhow… As its been said countless times, what CONSENTING ADULTS do, in the privacy of their home is their business. How they wish to label their relationship is their own business.
Exactly. But when the State decides to make those private practices the basis to change law, especially the law of marriage, then it becomes my business. And when it concerns what children are taught in school concerning sex and marriage then it becomes doubly my business.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 12:06 pm
“You left the capital c out of Creator.And you left out God altogether.”
Errr, so? What do I care and bearing does it have on the conversation – Like many of the founding fathers I don’t believe in a personal or christian god (or a god at all).
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 12:06 pm
northland wahine
The new legislation is not about consenting adults in the privacy of their homes.As has been pointed out there are prohibitions on certain relationships.
This is not about privacy,equality or consent.
It’s about legislating for homosexual same sex marriage and the pollies should be straight about that,instead of dressing it up as “equality”.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 12:06 pm
Any historian worth their salt would laugh at such a ridiculous and silly statement.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 12:11 pm
@Judith (1,697) Says:
March 1st, 2013 at 10:00 am
Have you got a report on goats Judith?
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 12:31 pm
@Andrei – “In the days when people were educated rather than indoctrinated as they are today everybody would know that “homo” is the Latin for man – ie homosexuality means sex between men and by definition you cannot have “homosexual cows”.”
I also know that “homo” is greek for “same”. Homogenised milk, for example just means it’s the same throughout.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 12:32 pm
eszett, your ignorance is astounding.
Here are just some of the archaeological finds that back up what the Bible says.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 12:32 pm
eggshit et al are wrong on the Bible. Plenty of archaeology confirming places ,names etc.
It’s there if you want to find it.But that’s the point. They refuse due to their fundamentalist atheism.
The Bible As History.Werner Keller 1956.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 12:34 pm
“I also know that “homo” is greek for “same”. Homogenised milk, for example just means it’s the same throughout.”
Also ‘man’ i.e Homoerectus literally means “upright man” or “standing man”
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 12:35 pm
If all the heterosexuals stopped having homosexual kids, then the “problem” would be solved! I blame the heterosexual parents.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 12:37 pm
@Contrarian – We’ve borrowed that from Latin, not Greek.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 12:38 pm
Fletch, there are some people who share your literal reading of the religious books. The Taliban.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 12:39 pm
@SGA – I stand corrected
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 12:49 pm
Fletch… The way I look at it, as a parent, it’s my responsibility to instill my sense of morality into my children. Whether or not they choose to take those board are entirely up to them. Have faith in your Christian ideals and that they will not drown in a sea of debauchery….
And kowtow, what other label should they attach if not equality? Law abiding citizens who pay they taxes should they not expect equality? I’m not saying by any means all gays are faultless, but then again, neither are Hetros. I’m content to see humans treat other humans with dignity and respect.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 1:04 pm
If all the heterosexuals stopped having homosexual kids, then the “problem” would be solved!
People have kids. Period. Why some end up having attractions to the same gender has not really been explained. Maybe they never had a father, or were abused, or any number of other things. Prof Elizabeth Wells from Otago University did a study where she interviewed 13,000 people and found out that the ones who identify as gay, or bi or something else had three times as likely to have suffered some kind of abuse as children.
http://www.odt.co.nz/print/117336
Maybe that is just a part of it, but who knows.
For some it is a lifestyle choice or based on the practices of the culture they are part of.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 1:05 pm
Fletch’s favourite historian is a ridiculous man who gets his history from Louis L’Amour novels.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 1:07 pm
I really don’t care if Fred wants to dent Bob’s poohs, I also have no concern that Fred and Bob want to get married.
Where I get properly annoyed is when a whole slew of supporting legislation is changed such that I am no longer a husband and my wife is no longer that, but we are ‘partners’ or ‘spouses’ or ‘married couple’ And for what, to ensure I don’t make someone feel bad?!?
I’d bet if we changed the law to remove all references to Pakeha and Maori or Pacific Islanders and just called everyone people, there would be a shit fight of unspeakable magnitude. You are removing something that people identify themselves against and that is wrong. <– that is my point
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 1:09 pm
You do realise that both Unitarians & Quakers have changed dramaticlly since those days?
Yes, there were a handful of Deists in key positions. The term fundamentalist grew out of the liberal movement changing what Christianity meant. Those who refused to change where called “fundamentalist”. So in fact, they all were what you would today call “fundamentalist” as there was no such thing as liberal Christianity, at least not as we knew it today. Luckwarm and half-baked, absolutely. Liberal, not really.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 1:11 pm
Please do give your opinion Hitchens, Dawkins et al.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 1:22 pm
When the ruling elite goes insane there is no end to the abominations including the official blessing of groteseque forms of child abuse
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 1:25 pm
They both made careers ridiculing people like you.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 1:29 pm
Tammy Bruce, who is not Christian and is a Lesbian, has a very good view of the progressive Gay Agenda, having worked with NOW when she was younger. I’ve read her book, The Death Of Right And Wrong and she makes some good points.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Death-Right-Wrong-ebook/dp/B000FC1RQ4/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1362097741&sr=1-2
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 1:35 pm
Yahweh’s Amazing Test (Abraham, Genesis 22)
Christian morality:
Vote:
March 1st, 2013 at 1:46 pm
Nah, you got this wrong.
No such thing as husband and wife anymore.
Marriage only means you now have a partner / spouse.
To say otherwise is to be ‘homophobic’.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 1:56 pm
“An argument so powerful, I think we need to see it again…
Well RRM you did ask! And here it is in all it’s naked glory :
Gays DEBASE themselves and other gays – some gays here like Chardonayguy have said that they have sodomy because ‘animals do’.
Man doesn’t eat just because dogs eat. Train for the olympics just because cheetas run fast. Nuture children just because lionesses do.
Man TRANSENDS the animal kingdom – because we think. Except for some gays, and muderers, and childmolesters.
Wanking as we know involves closing the fist around a penis. The hand has an opening at each end to contain the penis in.
Sodomy consists of placing the penis into the bottom end of the digestive system, the other opening of the digestive system is the mouth.
Sodomy is therefor a deprived form of mutual masterbation.
Meanwhile, sex between a husband and wife consists of two complementry sexual organs.
Sex consists of placing the penis into the enrty of the female reproductive area. This is what a husband and wife do on their first wedding night.The human species reproduces itself from here also. Nothing is reproduced in the human bowel as humans were not designed for this.
Therefor, male gays ‘take turns’ at masterbating ‘eachother’ in the anus on their wedding nights.Foreplay is all that happens between lesbians on their wedding nights.
Nothing ‘human’ is in the digestive system of humans – other than some acids, macdonalds, coke ect. If the human body was boneless you could essentually turn a human ‘inside out’ because of the digestive system. In other words, the digestive system compared to all other areas inside a human, is actually ‘outside’ the human body. Gays ‘fuck’ this ‘outside’ area.
Therefor, to celebrate ‘diversity’ and ‘sameness’ on a Wedding night is impossable for gays. Moreso, male gays.
There is no such thing called ‘equality’ between hetrosexuals and homosexuals – nor between a deer and a tiger. Ever.
Metaphysicly it is impossable for gays to get ‘Married’. They can only ever pretend to be – and even then, they will have to ‘think’ that their relationship is the ‘same’. Some Marriage! Some life!
Don’t fall for the LGBT lies!
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 1:59 pm
“Where I get properly annoyed is when a whole slew of supporting legislation is changed such that I am no longer a husband and my wife is no longer that, but we are ‘partners’ or ‘spouses’ or ‘married couple’”
Who says you can’t be husband and wife?
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 2:01 pm
The way to (attempt to) stop law changes by pointing out the flaws in the law in public forums.
The way to help someone with a broken house is to fix their house.
The fact that you see Christians as obsessing about homosexuality and not about other evils is a limit to what you see, not a commentary on what Christians are actually doing. It wasn’t Christians who proposed this bill and pushed the issue into the public square.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 2:05 pm
@Harriet
Are you aware that the overwhelming majority of anal sex takes place between heterosexual partners?
Do some research. You might learn something.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 2:06 pm
Good non-answer.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 2:10 pm
Keep talking dirty Harriet, I’m almost there!
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 2:11 pm
Oh, I’m quite certain that it will become law. Always have been.
But it will never become fact. That’s always been my issue with it.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 2:12 pm
^^^ That there is quite possibly the best comment I’ve ever seen in over 7 years of reading Kiwiblog
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 2:14 pm
“But it will never become fact.”
errr, what?
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 2:18 pm
So glad you asked.
Marriage is marriage. Just because you pass a law to call the union of two women a marriage does not make it, in fact, a marriage. Just the same that you cannot pass a law decreeing that an elephant is a carrot.
I’ve seen some of the marriage “equity” crowd realise this but I’m guessing it’ll be 5 years after the bill is passed before it becomes a widespread realisation. It’ll be grimly amusing to see what law change they propose *then*.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 2:23 pm
“Marriage is marriage. Just because you pass a law to call the union of two women a marriage does not make it, in fact, a marriage.”
Yes well that’ll be your opinion. those married will see it much different to you and no amount of your tears and wails will change that.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 2:25 pm
Liars @ LGBT
Gay sex is nothing like what ‘man-woman’ – humans – would ever do if they were the last two people on earth.
Now, would the last lesbian and last gay-boy on earth please admit that they ‘are not born that way’?
Do gays really hate mankind and prefer to live like animals ‘naturally’?
The jokes on the gays and the MP’s!
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 2:28 pm
Harriet –
Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about putting a penis in the other end of the digestive system? (the input end)
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 2:31 pm
Oh dear!
Come back when you’ve lost your virginity…
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 2:32 pm
“…Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about putting a penis in the other end of the digestive system? (the input end)…’
I don’t.
It is called foreplay RRM.
And that’s all it will ever be!
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 2:32 pm
Hence the fact you get no tears and wails from me. I predict the stupidity of all this will be worked out sooner or later.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 2:46 pm
Fletch, this is not a thread about the bible, so I’ll keep it short.
You accusing me of ignorance is quite a ironic (once again) given the idiocy of your statement that “the Bible the most accurate historical book we have.”
That is just plain nonsense, only put forward by the most boneheaded christian apologist. Pointing out passage where the Bible is indeed historical accurate does not support your statement at all. Unsurprisingly you once again neglect to give a source of your statements, no doubt some apologist website.
There are heaps of inaccuracies and fiction and not to mention the downright mythology.
No one says the Bible is completely inaccurate historically, but it is not a history book by any stretch of the imagination.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 2:48 pm
After all this time, Bill Clinton is finally vindicated by Harriet.
I am sure he’ll be pleased.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 2:50 pm
Fun and games.
‘Bride’ & ‘Bridegroom’ Removed From Marriage Certificates
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 3:15 pm
@TheContrarian – The law does…..and if you come back and say no it makes no difference, then we come right back to my original point of…If it makes no difference to my marriage what the law says, then why can’t the gays think like that?
– if it makes no difference that the law does not officially recognise their union, then they can just run around telling people they are married and all will be well with the world….
But thats the thing, IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE!! otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion now would we.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 3:34 pm
My grand-progenitor will be turning is his grave
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 3:56 pm
It will make no differnce to you and your marriage if a gay cooule can marry.
It would however make a huge difference to you if your marriage wouldn’t be recoognised by the state.
It’s not really tthat difficult, giving other people the same rights you enjoy does not diminish your rights in any way.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 4:02 pm
Is there any actual substantive difference between a civil union and a marriage as far as the law goes?
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 4:09 pm
From Merriam-Webster
Progenitor -
a:an ancestor in the direct line : forefather
b : a biologically ancestral form
So it is not sufficient to say Progenitor instead of parent. It would have to be first-generation progenitor, or similar. (Perhaps primary or direct progenitor)
So Grandad and Nana would become 2nd generation progenitors.
“Just popping out to 2nd generation progenitor for a cuppa”
Kind of catchy really
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 4:23 pm
let’s look at the summary of what’s in and what’s out
Oh, and by the way, Nuieans, Cook Islanders, trade unionists, and all wildlife can relax
TERMS ‘HUSBAND’ AND ‘WIFE’ BEING DELETED
Adoption Act 1955
Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 1995
Crimes Act 1961
Child Support Act 1991
Land Transfer Act 1952
Status of Children Act 1969
Joint Family Homes Act 1964
Property (Relationships) Act 1976
Family Proceedings Act 1980
Judicature Act 1908
Social Security Act 1964
Maori Vested Lands Administration Act 1954
Summary Proceedings Act 1957
Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993
TERMS ‘HUSBAND’ AND ‘WIFE’ BEING LEFT IN
Cook Islands Act 1915
Ellen Harriet Eames Estate Act 1989
Deckston Hebrew Trust Act 1949
Niue Act 1966
Trade Unions Act 1908
Tuberculosis Act 1948
Sutton Adoption Act 1948
Wildlife Act 1953
Marianne Caughey Preston Estate Act 1945
McLean Institute Act 1934
Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971
Peggy Joan Boys Voluntary Settlement Act 1951
John Fuller Trust Act 1951
Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act 1966
McKenzie Trusts Act 1954
Rates Rebate Act 1973
Secret Commissions Act 1910
Civil Service Act 1908
Administration Act 1969
Trustee Act 1956
Perpetuities Act 1964
Estate and Gift Duties Act 1968
Wills Act 2007
Sale of Liquor Act 1989
Superannuation Act 1956
Government Superannuation Fund Act 1956
Matrimonial Property Act 1976
Marriage Act 1955
Wills Act 1837 (UK)
Life Insurance Act 1908
Law Reform Act 1936
Housing Act 1955
Burial and Cremation Act 1964
Criminal Procedure Act 2011
Finance Act (No 2) 1952
Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987
War Pensions Act 1954
Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949
Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998
Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1908
Maori Soldiers Trust Act 1957
Pacific Islands Polynesian Education Foundation Act 1972
Ngāti Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Act 2005
Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Act 2005
Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988
Maori Land Act 1993
Local Legislation Act 1975
Domicile Act 1976
Reserves and other Lands Disposal Act 1938
Mortgagors and Lessees Rehabilitation Act 1936
National Expenditure Adjustment Act 1932
Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act 1906
Vote:– See more at: http://bobmccoskrie.com/?p=7150#sthash.B0etRMDd.dpuf
March 1st, 2013 at 4:37 pm
Getting married is no more a right than getting your license. If it was you could sue the girl/boy who dumped you because she found out you were of a certain religious background.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 4:42 pm
Judith (1,697) Says:
March 1st, 2013 at 10:00 am
Andrei (1,886) Says:
March 1st, 2013 at 9:30 am
——————————-
Nature allows homosexuality, in fact a report done a couple of years back stated that a very high percentage of NZ rams took part in homosexual activity and often formed life-long relationships with other rams. (No, not the sports team).
Anyone who has lived on a farm, even diary farms will know that ‘nature’ is not specific or judgmental by requiring its animals are heterosexual. It appears that even ‘she’ accepts that that relationships for ‘love/companionship’ are as important as the need to continue to the species. (Although I do accept that such relationships, like the raping of young bulls probably has other purposes in nature that has nothing to do with ‘friendship’)
So are you saying sheep should be allowed to marry too?
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 5:08 pm
In amoungst all the blather on this blog, Scott at 0939 skewered Farrar’s argument right between the eyes and no-one seems to have noticed. So, are Farrar’s arguments wrong ? His silence is interesting……..
This bill is pathetic and opportunist. Not all notes to husband and wife WOULD have to be removed/changed to get access to homosexual’s adopting and the fact that the bill’s authors and supporters haven’t done that shows: a) their opportunistic mischief, b) their utter laziness and c) the level of their liberal elite smugness.
The one thing they won’t be able to legislate (unless we get ThoughtCrime) is ACCEPTANCE.
And with Section 56 being repealed, plenty of commentators will remind the nation of that fact.
And still, no-one knows how many of the 2,898 “unique” contributions to the committee were “for” or “against”.
Oh for a politician with the spine to bring that question up on the 13th!
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 5:32 pm
@MrTips
You are wrong and Scott is wrong.
In his blog post, DPF wrote:
“The Bill does make what is called consequential amendments to 15 other acts, which for the sake of convenience the term spouse is used.”
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 5:36 pm
MrTips, accpentance is already here, the law change is merely refelcting that.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 5:41 pm
gump
No, neither I nor Scott are wrong. Farrar’s concluding argument was: “The issue is a red herring”. It is not – the change in wording in parts of the Marriage and the other consequential changes are ENTIRELY necessary to achieve its aims. That the rest of the Act that does not impact on this and left as it is shows how lazy the authors are.
It is clear National is somewhat divided/worried by this Bill now, and hence the Farrar spin machine, one of many, is in action.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 5:43 pm
eszett: keep telling yourself that…
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 5:51 pm
A small majority of unique submissions (55 percent) were OPPOSED to the Bill.
http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/CC8B407E-C396-4389-8A3D-196DD11DFD2F/264186/50SCGA_ADV_00DBHOH_BILL11528_1_A318744_Departmenta.pdf
But you won’t hear this blog or politicians or the Select Committee report or the media tell you !!!!!!
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 5:55 pm
I’ve read some interesting blog posts about this from the UK. Spiked Online’s, Brendan O’Neill, for example, points out that as a civil rights issue, Gay Marriage differs from, for example, the US race civil rights issue in that it is driven by a top-down liberal elite diktat, as opposed to a grass-roots activist movement
As such, Gay Marriage might prove to be quite socially divisive and further disenfranchise the general populace from the political elite and their claque.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 6:10 pm
Interesting Kenny and thanks for the link, but why are the reported number of submissions and subsequent data in your link SO DIFFERENT from the Select Committee?
Can anyone in Parliament count?
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 6:16 pm
And what’s your point, Kenny? A small majority against in the unique submissions vs a small majority for in overall submissions.
Not very relevant. It’s submissions, not a vote. Quality of arguments count more than quanity.
“The overwhelming majority of those expressing opposition to the Bill did so on the basis of strongly held religious convictions about the nature of marriage and on moral grounds.”
Hardly convincing, i.e. rational, arguments.
MrTips, I persume the difference is due to the timing of teh the two reports.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 6:45 pm
Oh eszett, your anti-religious, illogical stance does you no favours.
And seeing as submissions closed on 26th October 2012, are you really expecting people to believe that is “timing of the two reports?” BWHAHAHAHAHAHA…………
If it was a “lets make Christianity the only religion allowed” bill you’d be all over the numbers like a rash.
Be honest and consistent and not make stuff up.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 7:04 pm
And seeing as submissions closed on 26th October 2012, are you really expecting people to believe that is “timing of the two reports?” BWHAHAHAHAHAHA…………
Maybe you should read the report. On page 1 (one!!!) it says:
Submission numbers were correct to the best of our understanding as at 1pm 11 February 2013. A small number of unique submissions appear to be outstanding, but it seems unlikely that these would make a significant difference to the overall picture that has emerged from the submissions or to the advice provided by officials.
Your emotional outburst certainly does you no favours.
A religious argument is based on belief not fact, to argue you are against gay marriage because it’s against your religion is not a rational and thereby a weak argument.
Finally you say “lets make Christianity the only religion allowed” bill and then you accuse me of making stuff up?? That’s quite funny, actually.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 7:11 pm
Fletch (3,969) Says:
March 1st, 2013 at 10:43 am
————————-
I was not referring the ‘cows’ riding each other when in season. However, as you’ve mentioned it, perhaps you can explain why it is part of animal behaviour? Why does the scent of another female in ‘heat’, excite others in the herd? It serves no particular purpose, as the bull can also detect the smell, and doesn’t need the rest of the herd to ‘guide’ him.
Please don’t answer that is it so the farmer can tell when to call the AI guy!.
When a human females is sexually excited by another female, it is generally considered to be homosexual behaviour. Likewise for males – so why do bulls rape other bulls?
It sounds to me like you are in that very long river!
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 7:19 pm
Only if they can say ‘I do’ at the right time.
PS No I wasn’t saying sheep should be allowed to marry, I was pointing out that homosexuality is not a socially constructed phenomenon, (although it can be influenced by certain groups in society) and that it occurs in other areas of the natural world and among other species.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 7:20 pm
I guess we’d better get the marriage act amended so the cows can marry each other then Judith
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 7:23 pm
Might be a problem when it comes to age limits, there aren’t a great many cows (the bovine sort) over 16 years of age.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 7:25 pm
Judith, and not many at 16 would be able to get parental approval
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 7:31 pm
That could be a huge hurdle, however there is a bigger one – finding a bull that was happy to settle for just one cow! Is there anything in the act about polygamy?
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 8:23 pm
Given a genuine desire for same sex marriage, how many ‘gay’ people will actually marry?
As at 31 December 2011, 2152 civil unions were registered to New Zealand residents.
1685 same-sex unions, of which 989 had been between females and 696 had been between males, and 467 opposite-sex unions.
In the same time there was 127,631 marriages.
– Department of Statistics
Given it is social engineering exercise and acceptance of equality is the aim, how many gay people will actually get married, and adopt children, to ‘follow the exercise through’ to destroy the basic family unit?
Neither way is there likely to be very great numbers involved.
After Alison Mau’s wedding hitting Woman’s Weekly for a month, and that of Tamati Coffey, there will be little else.
Vote:Carl’s Jr Memphis BBQ Burger is a more destructive danger to New Zealand society
March 1st, 2013 at 8:58 pm
Sofia, if you’re measuring 100% of impact based on ‘uptake’ then you’re missing the point. By a long, long way.
Judith, no – not yet. But if the 1972 gay agenda has credibility, and it appears to be being progressively realised, then #8 is the next target. If not for the bovinesque amongst us, for the humans at least.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 9:28 pm
The vast majority of Catholics completely ignore teaching about sexual ‘sins’…
“Catholics don’t feel any guiltier about ‘sexual sins’ than members of other religions, a survey says.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2285684/Catholic-guilt-sexual-sins-myth-YouGov-religious-survey-says.html
Yet these rank hypocrites are only too keen to judge and cite fucking scripture about homosexuals.
Religion, kids: Just say no.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 9:36 pm
“Wife!!!” He demanded.
“Yes, husband” she replied meekly.
Oh no, this conversation will be outlawed! The sky will fall, we’ll all be buggered (literally), the world as we know it will end!
Yeah, right!
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 9:41 pm
wat –
There have been 10s of 1000′s of comments on this topic.
What percentage do you think ‘cite fucking scripture’?
Your best guess will do.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 9:50 pm
krazy,
Do you think being legalistic and literalist somehow wins you the debate?
The point, of course, is that those “Christians” who happily judge and condemn homosexuals based on Biblical teachings and loudly declare their outrage are only too happy to ignore any and every fucking verse when it comes to their own squalid little lives.
Show me a so-called Christian here condemning homosexuals and gay marriage and I’ll show you a hypocritical bigot simply using their claimed beliefs to wank themselves off and wallow in their own sense of superiority.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:04 pm
wat – I’m not interested in ‘winning the debate’. Pointing out outrageous hyperbole is more my thing. Your suggestion that all Christian’s comments on this topic ‘cite fucking scripture’ just sent the hyperboleometer red-lining.
Vote:March 2nd, 2013 at 5:14 am
Hilarious. The christian folk who sit all innocently at church like good christian sheeple, listening to the sermon about accepting others and unconditional love of christ then come home, go on Kiwiblog and become the most hateful, spiteful bigots out there. They’d rather defend the right for murderers to get married than law abiding gay folk.
Vote:Thank goodness I am not part of this hypocritical cult.
March 2nd, 2013 at 10:34 am
Liberal Minded Kiwi,
What complete bollocks. I don’t hate any gays.
There is nothing bigoted about standing up for traditional marriage: nothing.
As I’ve said before, many gays don’t agree with same-sex marriage either: are they bigoted also?
In fact, many gays just don’t care, as evidenced by this article in Stuff –
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/7356494/Marriage-Gay-guys-not-interested
It’s people like you who stop others engaging in conversation over the issue by smearing with labels anyone who disagrees with you.
Vote:There are many good reasons not to support same-sex marriage and most I’ve seen on here are not bigoted.
March 2nd, 2013 at 11:11 am
krazykiwi – Sofia, if you’re measuring 100% of impact based on ‘uptake’ then you’re missing the point. By a long, long way.
I was just wondering how many would take up the opportunity once the law passes.
There would need to be a number and obvious, through adoption [for example] for it to remain having any major societal effect as some people fear.
But if uptake is not the intention at all, and I am “missing the point – by a long, long way”, I wouldn’t mind some of those so much more intelligent here, in explaining the real aim – conspiracy theories and all – as to how this will destroy the basic family unit. There is surely a point when you can’t push the claims of gays much further.
After marriage and adoption can anyone name a further avenue for action, apart from the obvious one of complete public participation and the banning certain religious publications.
Uptake will still indicate if “equality” was ever a factor.
Vote:March 2nd, 2013 at 10:27 pm
Ignorance of pervasive nature of state fraud gives rise to statements like that.
A licence is the permission by competent authority to do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort. (From Black’s dictionary of law)
1. When did getting married become illegal, a trespass, or a tort?
2. When did the right to use a public road become illegal, a trespass, or a tort?
Answer to both questions: It didn’t. What happened was that the state required its persons to get permission before exercising that right. When the state enforces universal licencing it commits fraud because not all people are persons. A person in this context is someone who has an obligation to the state, for example a citizen. The state applies licencing universally on religious grounds, specifically the Anglican religion per the oath of allegiance.
Vote:March 2nd, 2013 at 11:47 pm
Gay marriage will have no effect in traditional marriage. It will still stay the same, you can still have a “traditional” marriage. Nothing will stop you from that.
Lol, many? Citing one person?
Just like not all straight people are interested in marriage neither are all gay people. So what? How many have to be interested for you to approve?
By your logic you would have to abolish straight marriage as well, since so many are not interested in it.
Biggest lol ever. The former is a great exaggeration, the latter just plain untrue.
Vote: