Still husband and wife, not just spouses

March 1st, 2013 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

Some 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.

Tags:

163 Responses to “Still husband and wife, not just spouses”

  1. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    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

    Presumably the supporters of the re-definition of marriage are outraged by this continuing discrimination. Yes? Hello?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. nasska (11,589 comments) says:

    Hark…..the distant rattle of the rosary beads warming up! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

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

    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: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    :shock: But the bit about compulsory gay sex at a “re-education facility” at least once a year for all adults over the age of 18 is still in there, right?

    …Right??

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. mikemikemikemike (325 comments) says:

    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.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. David Farrar (1,899 comments) says:

    The only thing sick is someone who compares a relationship between consenting adults of the same sex, to pedophilia.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Andrei (2,664 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Foxton (28 comments) says:

    Poor @mikemikemikemike and @Andrei the world must be such a scary place for you

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    The only thing sick is someone who compares a relationship between consenting adults of the same sex, to pedophilia.

    I completely agree. And I hope, but I’m not certain, that this outrage will be commonly felt in 50 years time.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    nasska (5,770) Says:

    March 1st, 2013 at 9:11 am
    Hark…..the distant rattle of the rosary beads warming up!

    I think what your hearing is the rattle of anal beads nasska ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Scott (1,805 comments) says:

    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)
    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”.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    As the prohibited schedule items would prevent inbreeding

    How exactly?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. kowtow (8,524 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. mikemikemikemike (325 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    ChardonnayGuy (412) Says:

    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

    That is still the age of consent over most the world. You need to look beyond your white liberal eurocentric world mate.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. mikemikemikemike (325 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. kowtow (8,524 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Mary Rose (393 comments) says:

    >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.
    And legal wording doesn’t stop anyone calling the person they are married to whatever they want to.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    mikemikemikemike (49) Says:

    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…..

    Good for you. What is your point ?

    The proposed legistlation will not change the nature of YOUR marriage. Relax.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. kowtow (8,524 comments) says:

    kea

    Dramatic?

    I’m responding to that wanker nasska and his constant fucking anti catholic barracking.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    kowtow, ignore him. Keep calm and carry on. Lead by example. I say that as an atheist myself.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. mikemikemikemike (325 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. thedavincimode (6,803 comments) says:

    Too bad chardongay guys’ pparents weren’t on the prohibited list too. Inbred fucker.

    Feel the Christian love.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    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.

    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: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. mikemikemikemike (325 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. thedavincimode (6,803 comments) says:

    Yeah nasska. Ya just a wanker eh.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Nothing about your marriage will change

    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: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. BeaB (2,125 comments) says:

    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).
    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. kowtow (8,524 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. mikemikemikemike (325 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Pete George (23,602 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Pete George (23,602 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. berend (1,711 comments) says:

    So David, is a husband a man or a woman? And a wife, is that a man or a woman?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. thedavincimode (6,803 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. backster (2,174 comments) says:

    It would be better to abolish marriage altogether than to persist in this abomination.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Andrei (2,664 comments) says:

    Marriage is a universal human institution – who gave the Government the right to change it?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    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 :D

    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: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. kowtow (8,524 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “Marriage is a universal human institution only for whom I approve”

    Isn’t this what you meant?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “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: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Andrei (2,664 comments) says:

    Well Contrarian I wonder how well Jeremy and Nigel’s freshly minted New Zealand marriage certificate will go down in Saudi Arabia?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    Who gives a shit about Saudi Arabia.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Andrei (2,664 comments) says:

    homosexuality in the animal kingdom

    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: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Harriet (4,990 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    This is what the Gay Rights Agenda from 1972 (which has never been changed) says about marriage – what they ultimately want –

    STATE LEVEL:

    1. All federal legislation and programs enumerated in Demands 1, 6, 7, 8, and 9 above should be implemented at the State level where applicable.

    2. Repeal of all state laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving consenting persons; equalization for homosexuals and heterosexuals for the enforcement of all laws.

    3. Repeal all state laws prohibiting solicitation for private voluntary sexual liaisons; and laws prohibiting prostitution, both male and female.

    4. Enactment of legislation prohibiting insurance companies and any other state-regulated enterprises from discriminating because of sexual orientation, in insurance and in bonding or any other prerequisite to employment or control of one’s personal demesne.

    5. Enactment of legislation so that child custody, adoption, visitation rights, foster parenting, and the like shall not be denied because of sexual orientation or marital status.

    6. Repeal of all state laws prohibiting transvestism and cross-dressing.

    7. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.

    8. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.

    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: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. nasska (11,589 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    @Fletch

    That’s like saying because Christians in Uganda want to stone all homosexuals to death then that is part of the Christian agenda.
    Use the brain your god gave you.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Harriet (4,990 comments) says:

    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! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “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: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Harriet (4,990 comments) says:

    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! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    For effects of same-sex marriage, we only have to look at Canada where it has been legal for a decade –

    A practical question comes to mind. What are the long term effects of gay marriage on a culture?

    We can look to Canada to get a feel. There, gay marriage has been legal for a decade.

    Canada has similarities to the United States as well as differences. What happens in Canada may not happen here. Nonetheless, let’s take a look at the Canadian experience with so-called gay marriage.

    Here’s what did not happen: polygamy. The concern was that if marriage is defined by feelings rather than function, polygamy would be the next natural step in the restructuring of marriage.

    One attempt was made in Canada, and it failed.

    However, gay marriage has had a significant impact in other areas. Dissent is viewed as bigotry. Government commissioners who protested and refused to issue marriage licenses were fired.

    Catholic organizations, such as the Knights of Columbus (of which I am a member), were fined when they refused to rent their facilities for same-sex wedding receptions.

    Clergy now have to be careful what they say from the pulpit regarding human sexuality, or face the risk of censure or worse from human rights tribunals. People who speak out against the new orthodoxy have this speech defined as “hate speech” and have been fined, forced by government officials to make public apologies, and coerced into never speaking out again against so-called same sex marriage.

    The financial cost is staggering if you run afoul of Canada’s Human Rights Commission. The cost to defend yourself for alleged “hate speech” is simply too much for most ordinary folks, who are beaten into compliance through sheer financial intimidation.

    Associations, such as bar associations, have the power to censure and discipline members who disagree with gay marriage laws.

    Teachers, in particular, put themselves at risk if they are critical of gay marriage, even if their remarks are made outside of the classroom. This kind of talk “creates a hostile environment for gay and lesbian students,” and is not tolerated.

    Parents in Canada have long had a right to veto contentious educational practices. They no longer do on the contentious subject of gay marriage, which must be portrayed in a positive light and as natural and normal.

    It will happen here, too.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Andrei (2,664 comments) says:

    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.

    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: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. kowtow (8,524 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    Fletch:

    However, gay marriage has had a significant impact in other areas. Dissent is viewed as bigotry. Government commissioners who protested and refused to issue marriage licenses were fired.

    Catholic organizations, such as the Knights of Columbus (of which I am a member), were fined when they refused to rent their facilities for same-sex wedding receptions.

    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: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “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: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    Not to mention the entirety of Genesis

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    An argument so powerful, I think we need to see it again…

    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! :cool:

    :???: WTF?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Northland Wahine (667 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. kowtow (8,524 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “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: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. kowtow (8,524 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. eszett (2,418 comments) says:

    Any historian worth their salt considers the Bible the most accurate historical book we have.

    Any historian worth their salt would laugh at such a ridiculous and silly statement.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Chuck Bird (4,897 comments) says:

    @Judith (1,697) Says:
    March 1st, 2013 at 10:00 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

    Have you got a report on goats Judith?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. SGA (1,076 comments) says:

    @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: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    eszett, your ignorance is astounding.

    Here are just some of the archaeological finds that back up what the Bible says.

    A Common Flood Story. Not just the Hebrews (Gen. 6–8), but Mesopotamians, Egyptians, and Greeks all report a flood in primordial times. A Sumerian king list from c. 2100 BC divides itself into two categories: those kings who ruled before a great flood and those who ruled after it. One of the earliest examples of Sumero-Akkadian-Babylonian literature, the Gilgamesh Epic, describes a great flood sent as punishment by the gods, with humanity saved only when the pious Utnapishtim (AKA, “the Mesopotamian Noah”) builds a ship and saves the animal world thereon. A later Greek counterpart, the story of Deucalion and Phyrra, tells of a couple who survived a great flood sent by an angry Zeus. Taking refuge atop Mount Parnassus (AKA, “the Greek Ararat”), they supposedly repopulated the earth by heaving stones behind them that sprang into human beings.

    The Code of Hammurabi. This seven-foot black diorite stele, discovered at Susa and presently located in the Louvre museum, contains 282 engraved laws of Babylonian King Hammurabi (fl. 1750 BC). The common basis for this law code is the lex talionis (“the law of the tooth”), showing that there was a common Semitic law of retribution in the ancient Near East, which is clearly reflected in the Pentateuch. Exodus 21:23–25, for example, reads: “But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot…” (niv).

    The Nuzi Tablets. The some 20,000 cuneiform clay tablets discovered at the ruins of Nuzi, east of the Tigris River and datable to c. 1500 BC, reveal institutions, practices, and customs remarkably congruent to those found in Genesis. These tablets include treaties, marriage arrangements, rules regarding inheritance, adoption, and the like.

    The Existence of Hittites. Genesis 23 reports that Abraham buried Sarah in the Cave of Machpelah, which he purchased from Ephron the Hittite. Second Samuel 11 tells of David’s adultery with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite. A century ago the Hittites were unknown outside of the Old Testament, and critics claimed that they were a figment of biblical imagination. In 1906, however, archaeologists digging east of Ankara, Turkey, discovered the ruins of Hattusas, the ancient Hittite capital at what is today called Boghazkoy, as well as its vast collection of Hittite historical records, which showed an empire flourishing in the mid-second millennium BC. This critical challenge, among many others, was immediately proved worthless — a pattern that would often be repeated in the decades to come.

    The Merneptah Stele. A seven-foot slab engraved with hieroglyphics, also called the Israel Stele, boasts of the Egyptian pharaoh’s conquest of Libyans and peoples in Palestine, including the Israelites: “Israel — his seed is not.” This is the earliest reference to Israel in nonbiblical sources and demonstrates that, as of c. 1230 BC, the Hebrews were already living in the Promised Land.

    Biblical Cities Attested Archaeologically. In addition to Jericho, places such as Haran, Hazor, Dan, Megiddo, Shechem, Samaria, Shiloh, Gezer, Gibeah, Beth Shemesh, Beth Shean, Beersheba, Lachish, and many other urban sites have been excavated, quite apart from such larger and obvious locations as Jerusalem or Babylon. Such geographical markers are extremely significant in demonstrating that fact, not fantasy, is intended in the Old Testament historical narratives; otherwise, the specificity regarding these urban sites would have been replaced by “Once upon a time” narratives with only hazy geographical parameters, if any.
    Israel’s enemies in the Hebrew Bible likewise are not contrived but solidly historical. Among the most dangerous of these were the Philistines, the people after whom Palestine itself would be named. Their earliest depiction is on the Temple of Rameses III at Thebes, c. 1150 BC, as “peoples of the sea” who invaded the Delta area and later the coastal plain of Canaan. The Pentapolis (five cities) they established — namely Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza, Gath, and Ekron — have all been excavated, at least in part, and some remain cities to this day. Such precise urban evidence measures favorably when compared with the geographical sites claimed in the holy books of other religious systems, which often have no basis whatever in reality.10

    Shishak’s Invasion of Judah. First Kings 14 and 2 Chronicles 12 tell of Pharaoh Shishak’s conquest of Judah in the fifth year of the reign of King Rehoboam, the brainless son of Solomon, and how Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem was robbed of its treasures on that occasion. This victory is also commemorated in hieroglyphic wall carvings on the Temple of Amon at Thebes.

    The Moabite Stone. Second Kings 3 reports that Mesha, the king of Moab, rebelled against the king of Israel following the death of Ahab. A three-foot stone slab, also called the Mesha Stele, confirms the revolt by claiming triumph over Ahab’s family, c. 850 BC, and that Israel had “perished forever.”

    Obelisk of Shalmaneser III. In 2 Kings 9–10, Jehu is mentioned as King of Israel (841–814 BC). That the growing power of Assyria was already encroaching on the northern kings prior to their ultimate conquest in 722 BC is demonstrated by a six-and-a-half-foot black obelisk discovered in the ruins of the palace at Nimrud in 1846. On it, Jehu is shown kneeling before Shalmaneser III and offering tribute to the Assyrian king, the only relief we have to date of a Hebrew monarch.

    Burial Plaque of King Uzziah. Down in Judah, King Uzziah ruled from 792 to 740 BC, a contemporary of Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah. Like Solomon, he began well and ended badly. In 2 Chronicles 26 his sin is recorded, which resulted in his being struck with leprosy later in life. When Uzziah died, he was interred in a “field of burial that belonged to the kings.” His stone burial plaque has been discovered on the Mount of Olives, and it reads: “Here, the bones of Uzziah, King of Judah, were brought. Do not open.”

    Hezekiah’s Siloam Tunnel Inscription. King Hezekiah of Judah ruled from 721 to 686 BC. Fearing a siege by the Assyrian king, Sennacherib, Hezekiah preserved Jerusalem’s water supply by cutting a tunnel through 1,750 feet of solid rock from the Gihon Spring to the Pool of Siloam inside the city walls (2 Kings 20; 2 Chron. 32). At the Siloam end of the tunnel, an inscription, presently in the archaeological museum at Istanbul, Turkey, celebrates this remarkable accomplishment. The tunnel is probably the only biblical site that has not changed its appearance in 2,700 years.

    The Sennacherib Prism. After having conquered the 10 northern tribes of Israel, the Assyrians moved southward to do the same to Judah (2 Kings 18–19). The prophet Isaiah, however, told Hezekiah that God would protect Judah and Jerusalem against Sennacherib (2 Chron. 32; Isa. 36–37). Assyrian records virtually confirm this. The cuneiform on a hexagonal, 15-inch baked clay prism found at the Assyrian capital of Nineveh describes Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah in 701 BC in which it claims that the Assyrian king shut Hezekiah inside Jerusalem “like a caged bird.” Like the biblical record, however, it does not state that he conquered Jerusalem, which the prism certainly would have done had this been the case. The Assyrians, in fact, bypassed Jerusalem on their way to Egypt, and the city would not fall until the time of Nebuchadnezzar and the Neo-Babylonians in 586 BC. Sennacherib himself returned to Nineveh where his own sons murdered him.

    The Cylinder of Cyrus the Great. Second Chronicles 36:23 and Ezra 1 report that Cyrus the Great of Persia, after conquering Babylon, permitted Jews in the Babylonian Captivity to return to their homeland. Isaiah had even prophesied this (Isa. 44:28). This tolerant policy of the founder of the Persian Empire is borne out by the discovery of a nine-inch clay cylinder found at Babylon from the time of its conquest, 539 BC, which reports Cyrus’s victory and his subsequent policy of permitting Babylonian captives to return to their homes and even rebuild their temples.

    So it goes. This list of correlations between Old Testament texts and the hard evidence of Near Eastern archaeology could easily be tripled in length. When it comes to the intertestamental and New Testament eras, as we might expect, the needle on the gauge of positive correlations simply goes off the scale.
    To use terms such as “false testament” for the Hebrew Bible and to vaporize its earlier personalities into nonexistence accordingly has no justification whatever in terms of the mass of geographical, archaeological, and historical evidence that correlates so admirably with Scripture.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. kowtow (8,524 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “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: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. David Farrar (1,899 comments) says:

    If all the heterosexuals stopped having homosexual kids, then the “problem” would be solved! I blame the heterosexual parents.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. SGA (1,076 comments) says:

    @Contrarian – We’ve borrowed that from Latin, not Greek.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Fletch, there are some people who share your literal reading of the religious books. The Taliban.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    @SGA – I stand corrected

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Northland Wahine (667 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    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.

    New Zealanders who identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual, or who have had a same-sex encounter or relationship, tend to come from more disturbed backgrounds, a University of Otago researcher has found.

    Information extracted from 13,000 face-to-face interviews clearly showed those with same-sexual or bisexual orientation were more likely to have experienced negative events in childhood, Associate Prof Elisabeth Wells said yesterday.

    People who had experienced sexual abuse as children were three times more likely to identity themselves as homosexual or bisexual than those who had not experienced abuse, she said. Also, the more adverse events someone experienced in childhood, the more likely they were to belong to one of the “non-exclusively heterosexual” groups.

    Associations between adverse events and sexuality group were found for sexual assault, rape, violence to the child and for witnessing violence in the home.

    Other adverse events, such as the sudden death of a loved one, serious childhood illness or accident, were only slightly associated with non-heterosexual identity or behaviour.

    Prof Wells, a consultant statistician based in the department of public health and general practice at the university’s Christchurch campus, further analysed answers to a series of questions about sexual orientation and home life asked as part of a major New Zealand mental health survey carried out in 2003 and 2004.

    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.

    The world’s leading expert on the history of homosexuality is Dr David Greenburg, a New York sociologist, who is gay himself and is the author of a 635 page academic study of homosexuality through the ages called “The Construction of Homosexuality”. It has been hailed within academic circles as the most “extensive and thorough” analysis of homosexuality ever published. And what does he say? That homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. He said he had “an obligation to the truth”. Greenburg looked at all recorded examples of homosexuality. Every single one, he wrote, could be traced back to sexual behaviour practice rather than an innate sexual identity.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. cha (4,036 comments) says:

    Any historian worth their salt would laugh at such statement.

    Fletch’s favourite historian is a ridiculous man who gets his history from Louis L’Amour novels.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. mikemikemikemike (325 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    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.

    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: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Fletch’s favourite historian is a ridiculous man who gets his history from Louis L’Amour novels.

    Please do give your opinion Hitchens, Dawkins et al.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Andrei (2,664 comments) says:

    When the ruling elite goes insane there is no end to the abominations including the official blessing of groteseque forms of child abuse

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. cha (4,036 comments) says:

    Please do give your opinion Hitchens, Dawkins et al.

    They both made careers ridiculing people like you.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    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.

    For the gay establishment, the death of right and wrong began when gaining civil rights ceased to be enough. As the Gay Elite found Americans willing to tolerate and even accept their divergent lifestyle and point of view, they started exploiting that compassion. Thus began the furtherance of a campaign that, although promoted in the name of tolerance, understanding, and compassion, has nothing to do with acceptance of homosexuals and everything to do with eliminating the lines of decency and morality across the board. Instead of being about tolerance and equal treatment under the law, today’s gay movement, in the hands of extremists, now uses the language of rights to demand acceptance of the depraved, the damaged, and the malignantly narcissistic. Today’s gay activists have carried the campaign a step further, invading children’s lives by wrapping themselves in the banner of tolerance. It is literally the equivalent of the wolf coming to your door dressed as your grandmother.

    The radicals in control of the gay establishment want children in their world of moral decay, lack of self-restraint, and moral relativism. Why? How better to truly belong to the majority (when you’re really on the fringe) than by taking possession of the next generation? By targeting children, you can start indoctrinating the next generation with the false construct that gay people deserve special treatment and special laws. How else can the gay establishment actually get society to believe, borrowing from George Orwell, that gay people are indeed more equal than others? Of course, the only way to get that idea accepted is to condition people into a nihilism that forbids morality and judgment. It is, in fact, about power and control. It’s that simple. Although the radical gay agenda seems to be everywhere in our culture, there is actually a quite small number of individuals constituting what I term the Gay Elite. They, like other left-wing leaders, are the fundamentalists of their movement—usually the most damaged and the most determined. They work to the detriment of all the decent, responsible gay women and men in this country, for whom they claim to speak. Who are “they”? They’re the leaders of groups like the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF). All have tremendous cultural and political influence.

    Bruce, Tammy (2004-06-29). The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values (p. 88). Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Death-Right-Wrong-ebook/dp/B000FC1RQ4/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1362097741&sr=1-2

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Yahweh’s Amazing Test (Abraham, Genesis 22)

    Christian morality:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. wreck1080 (3,924 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Harriet (4,990 comments) says:

    “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! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “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: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    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.

    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: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. gump (1,650 comments) says:

    @Harriet

    Are you aware that the overwhelming majority of anal sex takes place between heterosexual partners?

    Do some research. You might learn something.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:
    Fletch’s favourite historian is a ridiculous man who gets his history from Louis L’Amour novels.

    Please do give your opinion Hitchens, Dawkins et al.

    They both made careers ridiculing people like you.

    Good non-answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    Keep talking dirty Harriet, I’m almost there! :twisted:

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    It’s clearly time to put this whole issue aside. It is a done deal. Same-sex marriage will become law.

    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: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    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.

    ^^^ That there is quite possibly the best comment I’ve ever seen in over 7 years of reading Kiwiblog :-P

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “But it will never become fact.”

    errr, what?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    “But it will never become fact.”

    errr, what?

    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: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “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: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Harriet (4,990 comments) says:

    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! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    Harriet –

    Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about putting a penis in the other end of the digestive system? (the input end) :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    Gay sex is nothing like what ‘man-woman’ – humans – would ever do if they were the last two people on earth.

    :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
    :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
    :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

    Oh dear!

    Come back when you’ve lost your virginity…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Harriet (4,990 comments) says:

    “…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! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    those married will see it much different to you and no amount of your tears and wails will change that.

    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: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. eszett (2,418 comments) says:

    Fletch (3,969) Says:
    March 1st, 2013 at 12:32 pm
    eszett, your ignorance is astounding.

    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: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. eszett (2,418 comments) says:

    It is called foreplay RRM

    After all this time, Bill Clinton is finally vindicated by Harriet.

    I am sure he’ll be pleased.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Lucia Maria (2,474 comments) says:

    Fun and games.

    ‘Bride’ & ‘Bridegroom’ Removed From Marriage Certificates

    Family First NZ says that the terms ‘Bride’ and ‘Bridegroom’ will be removed from Marriage Certificates if the same-sex marriage bill is passed by politicians.

    The Select Committee report on the same-sex marriage bill has already confirmed that the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ will be removed from 16 pieces of legislation as it seeks to redefines marriage.

    “In the proposed new marriage certificates, brides and bridegrooms will simply be referred to as ‘parties’, and the ‘parties’ will have to clarify what sex they are. If husband, wife, bride and bridegroom are no longer used, what will be next – mother and father? In Spain, the term has already been changed to ‘progenitor’,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “Ironically, the proposed new form still asks for the ‘mother’ and ‘father’ of the parties getting married, which will not be appropriate with same-sex couples. They cannot even keep up with their own social engineering.”

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. mikemikemikemike (325 comments) says:

    @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: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. andyscrase (89 comments) says:

    My grand-progenitor will be turning is his grave

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

    If it makes no difference to my marriage what the law says, then why can’t the gays think like that?

    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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. andyscrase (89 comments) says:

    Is there any actual substantive difference between a civil union and a marriage as far as the law goes?

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

    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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Kenny (21 comments) says:

    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
    – See more at: http://bobmccoskrie.com/?p=7150#sthash.B0etRMDd.dpuf

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. mikemikemikemike (325 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Mark (1,488 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. MrTips (98 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. gump (1,650 comments) says:

    @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: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. eszett (2,418 comments) says:

    MrTips, accpentance is already here, the law change is merely refelcting that.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. MrTips (98 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. MrTips (98 comments) says:

    eszett: keep telling yourself that…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Kenny (21 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. andyscrase (89 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. MrTips (98 comments) says:

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

    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: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. MrTips (98 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. eszett (2,418 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Mark (1,008) Says:
    March 1st, 2013 at 4:42 pm

    So are you saying sheep should be allowed to marry too?

    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: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Andrei (2,664 comments) says:

    I guess we’d better get the marriage act amended so the cows can marry each other then Judith

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Andrei (1,892) Says:
    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

    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: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Judith, and not many at 16 would be able to get parental approval :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    krazykiwi (8,887) Says:
    March 1st, 2013 at 7:25 pm
    Judith, and not many at 16 would be able to get parental approval

    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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Sofia (858 comments) says:

    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.
    Carl’s Jr Memphis BBQ Burger is a more destructive danger to New Zealand society

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. wat dabney (3,778 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Kacang (36 comments) says:

    “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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    wat –

    … and cite fucking scripture about homosexuals

    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: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. wat dabney (3,778 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    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: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,571 comments) says:

    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.
    Thank goodness I am not part of this hypocritical cult.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    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 –

    Bruce Williamson, who has run gay nightclubs in Christchurch since the early 1980s, was “not even remotely interested in the issue”.

    “The average gay guy couldn’t care less about anything that resembles the institution of conventional heterosexual marriage,” he said.

    “It has no relevance to their lives. The majority couldn’t give a toss about it and I have no idea why people are obsessing over it.”

    The drawing of the bill was a “non-event” for Williamson, and he said many people in the gay and lesbian community were asking “why we are discussing it” via online blogs and forums.

    He believed the controversial issue was “being driven by only a few people who enjoy a good bandwagon to climb on”, but the issue of same-sex marriages was not a “common topic of conversation” in Christchurch’s gay community.

    “I don’t need validity of any relationship I am in, and in my experience others feel the same way. People couldn’t care less about it,” he said.

    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.
    There are many good reasons not to support same-sex marriage and most I’ve seen on here are not bigoted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Sofia (858 comments) says:

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

    Getting married is no more a right than getting your license.

    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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. eszett (2,418 comments) says:

    There is nothing bigoted about standing up for traditional marriage: nothing.

    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.

    In fact, many gays just don’t care, as evidenced by this article in Stuff

    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.

    There are many good reasons not to support same-sex marriage and most I’ve seen on here are not bigoted.

    Biggest lol ever. The former is a great exaggeration, the latter just plain untrue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote