A winner for the most repugnant letter

April 15th, 2013 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

I blogged on Friday a collection of the more bizarre and offensives letters against . I thought they were pretty bad, but we have an unparalleled winner in this one:

And what about the current discrimination of ?  It is a “natural” to them and genuine belief that it is beneficial to young children to experience sex at an early stage and certainly a condition that is definitely “not their fault”. 

First compares homosexuality to pedophilia. The idea of consenting adults seems lost on him or her.

I have met paedophiles who very genuinely love children and can be very caring people. One, whom I’ve known since childhood and who turned himself in to the police then would not visit my home because he was worried that people in the community would smash my windows or attack me for “harbouring” him.

I really don’t think I can add a comment on here.

Deviations from the “norm” are apparent in many conditions. The Dunedin man Weatherston was treated abominably as a mentally ill person. I actually looked up the Oxford dictionary at the time  and found “frenzy”means temporary insanity. Of course it was a dreadful tragedy for the victim and her family but, as matters are with psychiatric illness in N.Z. ,he could not have received medical attention anyway without having come to the attention of the police.

Now they effectively compares homosexuality as a deviation, just like . In fact they are upset about how poor old Clayton was treated. You can’t make this up!

“Understanding” and compassion towards those in society with deviant conditions should apply to ALL conditions -not just homosexuals.”

So the problem is that homosexuals get too much understanding and compassion, and pedophiles and Clayton Weatherston don’t get enough.

I don’t think you could top this letter, if you tried.

Tags: , ,

213 Responses to “A winner for the most repugnant letter”

  1. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Farrar: ” …compares homosexuality to pedophilia. The idea of consenting adults seems lost on him or her.”

    So you agree the key difference between homosexuality and paedophilia is consent, and that is what acceptance of homosexuality is based on.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 24 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Having realised acceptance of homosexuality is based on the notion of consent, let us consider bestiality. We don’t ask sheep if we can kill them, so why should we ask we can shag them? I am almost sure, but not certain, sheep would rather be married than have their throats slit.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    What age is consent “informed”? Here and the UK 16, France 15, Spain 14, some countries no limit but couples must be married. Seems arbitrary to me. Puberty, perhaps? Actually, isn’t it now believed the brain is immature until the twenties, especially men?

    Marriage. I wish I’d waited until I was 65.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Having accepted homosexuals should not be persecuted because their relationships are their own affair (sic), that is acceptance based on informed mutual consent, what is the basis for society endorsing homosexuality? The homosexual acts and lifestyle?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    I think someone is “taking the piss” DPF.

    @Dennis – You think the brain of the human male ever reaches a ‘mature’ level? :P

    Actually the brain is just a functioning organ – a piece of ‘matter’ – things that determine sexual behaviour are far more complicated than the ‘brain’. It involves not just organic but also psychological functioning.

    A bit like the Sonny Bill effect – enough to make any woman forget she is married.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. kowtow (8,475 comments) says:

    The gay propaganda campaign continues.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 24 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    I suggest to you, Mr Farrar, the insistence we call civil union “marriage” is to draw a veil over reality, nothing less that the normalisation of deviance. To prevent dissension. By usurping the word “marriage” to make it all “good”.

    Acceptance and charity are one thing, narcissistic humbuggery is another matter entirely.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 28 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (864) Says:
    April 15th, 2013 at 7:34 am
    ———————-

    Because it endorses the heterosexual life style by allowing them to ‘marry’. It should therefore allow all adults the same privilege (sic) providing there is not a close blood tie (for obvious reasons).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Judith. That’s enough pillow talk, Judith, when can we get to the hot sweaty stuff?

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Dennis – Believe me, you would not want me anywhere near you with a pillow! I might be encouraged to enforce my retirement plan early!

    I am beginning to think this topic already makes you hot and sweaty – me thinks thou doest protest too much! :P

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Judith. Smother me not with kisses? Better get a paper round then…

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. toms (299 comments) says:

    The opposition to Louisa Wall’s bill is coming from a fanatical minority – notably Bob McCoskrie of Family Fist (membership: one) and supported by clearly suppressed gays like Dennis Horne (surely your second name is God’s clue Dennis!). Most New Zealanders either support the bill or don’t care enough to be particularly bothered by gay marriage.

    It will pass on Wednesday, and we will get up on Thursday, complain about the rain and think about what we want for lunch.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 29 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    A classic tact when failing to win an argument based on reason is to resort to demonising opponents.

    So much the ‘better’ if all opponents can be tainted by association with extreme and/or illogical views.

    Go to the bottom of the class DPF. You’re resorting to the the strategy that you have previously railed against

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Oh, and while other threads pass with barely a comment from DPF, I predict that we’ll see plenty of in-comment responses directed at anyone who wants the definition of marriage to remain unchanged.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Andrei (2,652 comments) says:

    Who’d of thunk it – DPF an ardent disciple of Saul Alinsky.

    What is the provenance of this “letter” Mr Farrar?

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    The opposition to Louisa Wall’s bill is coming from a fanatical minority – notably Bob McCoskrie of Family Fist (membership: one)

    Really? I’d expect a lot more attention from Bob if I was his only member.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    I don’t think you could top this letter, if you tried.

    Sounds like someone’s trying to talk up tomorrow’s post.

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

    toms (217) Says: April 15th, 2013 at 7:56 am
    The opposition to Louisa Wall’s bill is coming from a fanatical minority … supported by clearly suppressed gays like Dennis Horne (surely your second name is God’s clue Dennis!).

    The push to usurp the word “marriage” is coming from a fanatical minority who cannot accept they did not mature sexually and cannot copulate for pleasure. A cruel trick of nature, but two wrongs don’t make a right.

    Most New Zealanders either support the bill or don’t care enough to be particularly bothered by gay marriage.

    Most Kiwis don’t have the brains of sparrows. Can’t think straight…

    It will pass on Wednesday, and we will get up on Thursday, complain about the rain and think about what we want for lunch.

    Indeed so. Man is a mad animal.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Most New Zealanders either support the bill or don’t care enough to be particularly bothered by gay marriage.

    It you or others believed that you would support a binding referendum as part of the claimed reason for the legislation is acceptance. A lot more acceptance would be gained it the majority really support homosexual marriage and homosexual adoption. Many people are upset about the changing of wording on the marriage forms. What will homosexuals change “Here comes the Bride” to “Here comes your Fuck Buddy” ?

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Judith. No one is stopping homosexuals from having a de facto “marriage”, enshrined by law as a civil union/partnership if so desired.

    Since time immemorial marriage has concerned copulation and rearing any offspring. It has never permitted homosexual acts. We are changing this so homosexuals feel better about themselves. Do you think this will work?

    Judith, I do have a boyfriend, according to my wife. He is my copilot. Fortunately we can share the joystick without anyone noticing. ;) ;) ;)

    Poor Judith, I’m too clever for you, Judith. Mind you, you could bore the pants off me. :) :) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Sofia (857 comments) says:

    Most New Zealanders either support the bill or don’t care enough to be particularly bothered by gay marriage.

    Most New Zelanders don’t realize that gay adoption will be an automatic option when this bill passes.

    Mind you, a toddler who has the ‘inequality’ of two same sex parents thrust one him or her [in deference to the supposed 'equality' for the gay married parents] will probably still be better off than most single parent families where a child can be an absolute fucking nuisance to the next step partner and often ends up as a nasty headline.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Nigel Kearney (1,013 comments) says:

    There will always be idiots out there but supporters of same sex marriage have opened the door to this sort of thing by relying on unsound arguments that refer to ‘not discriminating’ or ‘people who love each other’. If these arguments are accepted, then same-sex marriage, polygamous marriage and incenstuous marriage should all be legal, not just one of them. Conversely, these arguments can be refuted by pointing out that polygamy and incest are a really bad idea. You can hardly blame opponents for doing exactly that.

    How about being intellectually honest and trying to construct an argument for same sex marriage that doesn’t work equally well for incest or polygamy? I think this can be done, but unless supporters actually have such an argument and rely on it to convince people, I will continue to regard both sides as ignorant, dishonest or both.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    I am still waiting to hear a single, substantive argument against gay marriage. The most laughable are the arguments about “usurping words” (e.g. Denis Horne).

    Bill O’Reilly got it spot on: once you boil it down, all the opponents do is thump their bibles.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 23 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    So you agree the key difference between homosexuality and paedophilia is consent,

    Only to the point that the key difference between heterosexuality and paedophilia is also consent.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    all the opponents do is thump their bibles.

    If they followed Gods clear words, they would be *stoning homos to death in the street. Because that shows how morally superior they are !

    *(Also naughty kids, people who work on Sundays, non virgin brides and rather a lot else…)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. kowtow (8,475 comments) says:

    toms et al talk of opposition coming from a fanatical minority.

    I see a fanatical minority pushing through major social change.

    Perhaps a referendum is called for.

    This is after all a democracy,or is it?

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    queenstfarmer (341) Says: April 15th, 2013 at 9:02 am
    I am still waiting to hear a single, substantive argument against gay marriage.

    The answer is simple. Marriage is marriage and homosexual relationships are not, just as buses carry people and trucks carry goods. Both are motor vehicles but we make a distinction because there is one. You might not want to do so bit half the population does, and we had the word first. so bugger off. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    Oh, so straight relationships are permanent and durable by comparison, are they? Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries nuptials only lasted seventy days.. Pam Anderson and Rick Solomon managed sixty eight days, while Ethel Merman and Ernest Borgnine could only handle thirty-two. Drew Barrymore and Jeremy Thomas split after twenty nine days, while Mario Lopez and Ali Landry lasted only eighteen. Carmen Electra and Dennis Rodman, Cher and Gregg Allman, Catherine Oxenberg and Robert Evans all divorced after only nine days as spouses. Britney Spears divorced Jason Alexander fifty five hours later, while Zsa Zsa Gabor and Felipe Alba split up after only a day. However, the grand winner of these mayfly connubials is Rudolph Valentino, who only stayed hitched to Jean Acker for six hours before they realised it was a mistake.

    Here endeth the lesson…

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Perhaps a referendum is called for.

    No it is not called for. Traditional marriage is not being banned and can continue on in the usual way.

    I am facinated by how interested you lot are in the intimate lives of homosexuals. Personally I try not to think about it !

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    ‘people who love each other’ is the only thing that the gays have anywhere near right in the arguement for gay marriage-but- that is an emotion, and the government has never made laws based soley on emotions.
    It’s a very dangerous path to go down.

    The gays have no other arguement at all to get Married that still stands. Not one.

    Sure, they can use situations and say ‘why not us too’ like in the arguement that ‘infertile women get married’ – but they are not arguements as to WHY gays should get Married.

    Due to the sole arguement of ‘love’ – an emotion, gays are getting special rights GIVEN to them from government.

    Polygamists arn’t, and they have exactly the same case -love- and also the natural order- as arguements.

    On Wednesday one more thing will happen legally by default:

    Polygamists will become DISCRIMINATED AGAINST before the law. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. James Stephenson (2,180 comments) says:

    I am still waiting to hear a single, substantive argument against gay marriage

    I, like Nick K, am still waiting to hear a single substantive argument in favour of it. If you’re going to expand the definition of the word on the grounds of “consensual” and “loving” then what are your arguments for limiting the number of consensual and loving individuals within a marriage to two?

    Tradition? No, you’ve disallowed the use of that against you. Nature bases families around “pair bonds”? No, you’ve disallowed that and anyway: lions.

    I’m against this bill for the simple reason that it’s using the law to tell people how they’re supposed to think.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    The god bothering crazies are out in force.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    Chopping and carrying firewood is character building.

    These new-fangled “electric fires” are fake fires and they shouldn’t be allowed.

    You can steal the word “fire” if you want but it doesn’t make an electric fire a fire. We discriminate for a reason! :cool:

    This “electricity” business is major social engineering and it shouldn’t be allowed. Future generations will pay for it. Harrumph…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (871) Says:
    The answer is simple. Marriage is marriage and homosexual relationships are not

    I rest my case.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    RRM (6,832) Says:

    April 15th, 2013 at 9:26 am
    Chopping and carrying firewood is character building.

    Not on a Sunday though !

    Numbers 15

    15:32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
    15:33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
    15:34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
    15:35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
    15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    I rest my case.

    Your supposed to make your case first.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    James Stephenson (1,411) Says:
    I, like Nick K, am still waiting to hear a single substantive argument in favour of it.

    It removes a discrimination, and increases personal liberty.

    then what are your arguments for limiting the number of consensual and loving individuals within a marriage to two?

    Why do you assume such arguments are needed before you can support the same-sex marriage amendment as proposed?

    I’m against this bill for the simple reason that it’s using the law to tell people how they’re supposed to think.

    How is it doing that any more than the current law?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    Your [sic] supposed to make your case first.

    No need – Dennis made it so well for me.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    queenstfarmer, sorry I got you mixed up with another commentor :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Manolo (13,774 comments) says:

    Why has DPF changed into an obsessed activist for gay causes? The mind boggles.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    eszett (2,013) Says: April 15th, 2013 at 9:04 am
    DH:”So you agree the key difference between homosexuality and paedophilia is consent.”
    Only to the point that the key difference between heterosexuality and paedophilia is also consent.

    Heterosexual, paedophile and homosexual define entirely different conditions or actions. The differences exist independent of man and the law.

    Homosexuality and paedophilia for preference are both manifestations of a failure to mature sexually. We deny paedophiles expression of their feelings to protect those whom we deem vulnerable. We suppose adults can think, if not think “straight”.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. James Stephenson (2,180 comments) says:

    Why do you assume such arguments are needed before you can support the same-sex marriage amendment as proposed?

    Because otherwise, you’re not “removing discrimination” you’re just drawing the line in a different place.

    How is it doing that any more than the current law?

    I think the current law does what good law is supposed to do, namely *reflect* the way society thinks about things.

    If we’re going to change the law around marriage, then the amendment I’d support is the removal of the state from it entirely.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    Every single mentally competent adult enjoys the right to marry within exactly the same parameters required by natural law. Thus, “equal protection under the law” is afforded to all. As long as your spouse-to-be is:

    1) not too closely related to you;
    2) of legal age;
    3) only one person;
    4) of the opposite sex; and
    5) a biped of the genus Homo sapien, then you’re golden. Marry away.

    If you remove one requirement—in this case, the binary male-female prerequisite—then there is no justification, logical or legal, for not removing all requirements.

    http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/38900-gay-marriage-will-destroy-america-as-we-know-it

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    I am still waiting to hear a single, substantive argument against gay marriage

    You shouldn’t be waiting. Instead you should be advancing a compelling reason for changing the definition of marriage.

    I’ve yet to see one that doesn’t depend on the inaccurate and nonsensical term ‘discrimination’. If removal of discrimination is the cornerstone of the argument, then proponents should demonstrate some integrity of purpose, and seek removal of the ‘discrimination’ that prevents a man from marrying his mother.

    After all, from a numeric perspective there more men who love their mothers, than there are men who love the bloke next door, so the extent of this ‘discrimination’ demands attention? Right?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    Because otherwise, you’re not “removing discrimination” you’re just drawing the line in a different place.

    Is your argument that unless a law removes all discrimination anywhere and everywhere, then it shouldn’t be supported even though it removes a very substantial amount of discrimination? If so, that is flawed.

    If we’re going to change the law around marriage, then the amendment I’d support is the removal of the state from it entirely.

    Agreed. That would be the most sensible outcome.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Looking around I think there is a simple choice for most people: a gay marriage or an unhappy marriage. ;)

    It’s not about marriage, anyway. It’s about “correcting” the way society views homosexuality.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Changeiscoming (189 comments) says:

    I have heard Louisa Wall and other MP’s say when speaking in Parliment ” Equality for ALL (that should be a bold ALL) New Zealanders” so you are actually saying DPF, is that they are lying when they say ALL and they really dont mean ALL at all and that it is ok to carry on discriminating against other minority types.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    Homosexuality and paedophilia for preference are both manifestations of a failure to mature sexually

    This is true. Both are the result of emotional disturbances or premature sexual experimentation primarily during childhood or adolescence which can instill distorted erotic imagery in the minds of such people. Homosexual men who offend against minors are overwhelmingly ephebophiles, not pedophiles. Ephebophiles are homosexual attractions to post pubescent boys.

    Lesbian author and political commentator Tammy Bruce explains:

    Frankly, even before the depth of the Catholic Church’s problem became known, it was common knowledge that many gay men pursue sexual relationships with adolescent boys. Why? Based on my experience in the gay community, I believe it’s due to the fact that so many gay men had their first sexual experience as an adolescent with an adult male. That is a traumatic experience, and as long as the wound remains untreated, the victim feels compelled to continually reenact the experience so as to master it or project it onto others

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    If removal of discrimination is the cornerstone of the argument, then proponents should demonstrate some integrity of purpose, and seek removal of the ‘discrimination’ that prevents a man from marrying his mother.

    That is a fallacious argument (though a standard debating trick).

    A significant number of people are gay. The state currently blocks them, legally, from getting married in New Zealand.

    The amendment removes that discrimination and increases personal liberty which, in my humble view, is generally a good thing.

    On the other side of the ledger, I see no downside (I am not a bible thumper).

    Pros outweigh cons. Pros win.

    Fortunately, passing of the law will not abrogate my mental faculties in the same way that some opponents seem to think it may theirs. Therefore, if someone credibly proposes another law change in future (e.g. for polygamy) then I would listen to the arguments on all sides, consider the evidence, and make a judgment.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @queenstfarmer. Remove the state from marriage altogether?

    You don’t think women and children should have some legal protection? That men should be encouraged to stay with their partners and help raise their children?

    I can see where you’re coming from, and that’s exactly the reason I am opposed to this law change.

    Why not abandon civilisation altogether. Live like seagulls. Squabbling and stealing.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. James Stephenson (2,180 comments) says:

    Is your argument that unless a law removes all discrimination anywhere and everywhere, then it shouldn’t be supported even though it removes a very substantial amount of discrimination? If so, that is flawed.

    I disagree. If the raison d’etre for this bill is the removal of discrimination, then I think that there’s no point in doing it unless you’re going to make a proper job of it.

    Also, where is this “substantial amount” of discrimination? Civil Unions gave absolute equality in terms of legal status around inheritance, shared property etc, what remains is a) a word and b) adoption rights, which really deserves it’s own debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. James Stephenson (2,180 comments) says:

    You don’t think women and children should have some legal protection? That men should be encouraged to stay with their partners and help raise their children?

    Removing the state from “marriage”, ie have one standard of state-registered relationship that puts into place the legal protections around shared property, inheritance and children, and for mine that should not be limited to two people. You want to get “married”? Find the witch doctor, shamen or priest of your choice and go for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    I disagree. If the raison d’etre for this bill is the removal of discrimination, then I think that there’s no point in doing it unless you’re going to make a proper job of it.

    OK then we can agree to disagree. The bill removes a state discrimination that a lot of people are upset about. The fact that it doesn’t address (or intend to address) each and every permutation of hypothetical discrimination that opponents may formulate is not a sound basis, for me, not to support it.

    Also, where is this “substantial amount” of discrimination?

    In the current law.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    A significant number of people are gay. The state currently blocks them, legally, from getting married in New Zealand.

    A significant number of people love their parents. The state currently blocks them, legally, from getting married in New Zealand.

    You see, there is no difference.

    Do you support a law change to repeal the ‘discrimination’ outlined in Schedule 2 Forbidden Marriages of the Marriage Act?

    if not, why not?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    @queenstfarmer. Remove the state from marriage altogether?

    You don’t think women and children should have some legal protection?

    The state would recognise the civil union, but not the marriage, which is a private contract and a religious matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    Do you support a law change to repeal the ‘discrimination’ outlined in Schedule 2 Forbidden Marriages of the Marriage Act?

    I am not aware of any such amendment, nor have I heard any arguments on it, nor have I heard anyone claim discrimination arising from the status quo or support for such a change.

    Is your hypothetical argument supposed to be a reason not to support the current amendment?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    I was married in a Hotel de Ville in a suburb of Paris. I have a Livret de Famille which describes our state and records our parents and children. Nothing to do with the church or religion.

    I am married and I know what it means. I know what it meant to the French government when it required we produce medical certificates stating we were healthy male and female. I know what it meant to the NZ government when it produced a document recognising the marriage and giving my wife automatic residency.

    None of this nonsense makes any difference to me. But it might to future generations. Men are already reluctant to get married and accept their responsibilities. Ask all the single women around. This law will ultimately make marriage a joke, not a prize, and the children will suffer.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Men are already reluctant to get married and accept their responsibilities. Ask all the single women around.

    NZ women are the biggest players around. Why would I ask them about responsible comitted relationships ? They are a source of morality to no one. They are not only the most promiscuous, but are the only country where the women have more sex partners than the men. You will also find the whole “gay lobby” is driven by angry feminist women.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    1) not too closely related to you;
    2) of legal age;
    3) only one person;
    4) of the opposite sex; and
    5) a biped of the genus Homo sapien, then you’re golden. Marry away.

    If you remove one requirement—in this case, the binary male-female prerequisite—then there is no justification, logical or legal, for not removing all requirements.

    Bullshit.

    No-one is agitating to marry their dog or their father.

    (Other than in YOUR imagination… where homosexuality is apparently “wrong” in the same way that pedophilia and bestiality are.)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Kea (3,234) Says: April 15th, 2013 at 10:40 am
    DH: “Men are already reluctant to get married and accept their responsibilities. Ask all the single women around.”
    NZ women are the biggest players around.

    All the more reason to strengthen the concept of marriage not mock it by pretending buggery and wanking is the equivalence coition and offspring.

    If we do nothing then we are going to sink under a shed load of feral by-products housed and fed by taxing the decent people in this country, if there are any left.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    It alarms me that the anti gay marriage brigade are excitedly contemplating marriage to close relations and kids, should a couple of queers be allowed to get a bit of paper saying they are married.

    Calm down people ! it is not like it was back in biblical times, no matter how much you may want it to be. The days of incest and child brides, we all read about in the Bible, are over.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    A few words from the good book :)

    He got drunk and impregnated his virgin daughters.

    Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. Genesis 19:32-36

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    All the more reason to strengthen the concept of marriage not mock it by pretending buggery and wanking is the equivalence coition and offspring.

    Dennis, I do not think gays getting married will damage the sorts of values you hold.

    Please do not mock wanking ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Kea. Fear not, I do not mock or knock wanking, but it’s not the real thing. Ever. No matter how hard I try.

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

    Dennis, but if gay marriage is “not the real thing” then why all the fuss ?

    Do you think that allowing gay marriage will make you:

    1. More gay ?

    2. Less gay ?

    3. Just as gay as you are now ?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Is your hypothetical argument supposed to be a reason not to support the current amendment?

    QSF- Why should I support it?

    The onus is on those who support (or more accurately demand) that the definition of marriage be changed to provide a logically consistent, compelling reason for this change.

    So far they have utterly failed to do this, and in far too many instances, have resorted to ad hominem’s directed at those who want the definition to remain as it is.

    My position is this: If you support Wall’s amendment on the basis that it creates equality, then you must either:
    (a) demand repeal of the Forbidden Marriages schedule and demand recognition of polyamory relationships , or;
    (b) declare that you are happy with some inequality because supporting its removal doesn’t interest you

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Kea. It’s not about me. It’s about how society views and values the institute of marriage. (Is that the same answer I gave you last time you asked?)

    Note: I nearly married a cow once.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    krazykiwi, you silly bugger. It is not – all or nothing- and no one is suggesting marriage to live stock, kids or anything else. As for polygamy, why not ?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Bigots wanking on about a non existent “traditional marriage” being redefined again…? Lies lies lies….and isn’t that frowned on by the big sky fairy?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    we are going to sink under a shed load of feral by-products housed and fed by taxing the decent people in this country

    “feral by-products”, nice…

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

    Dennis you did not complete my wee quiz :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (878) Says:
    April 15th, 2013 at 11:00 am
    @Kea. Fear not, I do not mock or knock wanking, but it’s not the real thing. Ever. No matter how hard I try

    ————————————————–

    I have it on good authority that wanking, is actually wanking – if it doesn’t feel like real wanking to you, then perhaps you are not doing it right. Have you time for more practice? :P

    Honestly Dennis – you have nothing to worry about – society has changed, it is constantly evolving, if you stick round long enough it will complete the circle and your choice of man/woman marriage will come back into fashion again.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Kea. It makes no difference to me. Can’t teach an old dog new tricks. (Why does a dog lick its bits? Because it can.)

    Let me as you some questions. Are you married? Have you ever been married? Do you plan on getting married? Do you think you might get married?

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

    @Judith. frkmf mvjv mf ovmto kvgk gkvgkv ggvg hbhb rt e sllll

    Sorry, I forgot to change hands… ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Let me as you some questions. Are you married? Have you ever been married? Do you plan on getting married? Do you think you might get married?

    1. No

    2. Yes.

    3. Yes.

    4. Yes.

    I believe strongly in traditional marriage. I am an atheist, but share considerable common ground with many religious folk on marriage. A few gays playing mommy & daddy does not threaten my beliefs in anyway (or yours).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    krazykiwi (9,041) Says:
    My position is this: If you support Wall’s amendment on the basis that it creates equality, then you must either:
    (a) demand repeal of the Forbidden Marriages schedule and demand recognition of polyamory relationships , or;
    (b) declare that you are happy with some inequality because supporting its removal doesn’t interest you

    Oh I see, those are the only two possibilities you can contemplate. This again highlights the poor quality of reasoning from the opponents of the amendment.

    But FWIW, (b) is pretty close. The amendment does not fix all discrimination in the universe. It doesn’t claim to. But it fixes some, and those who want the discrimination removed have made reasonable points, whereas those who oppose have not. Another example of which is your silly demand that supporters “must” take one of your two narrow views.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Kea. Ah, so with a failed marriage behind you you give me the benefit of your wisdom.

    How many times do I need say, it’s not about me. I am a fervent atheist.

    I believe people should be independent but I do believe in society, which is why I never warmed to Margaret Thatcher, although her medicine was needed for a sick country.

    In my opinion, this humbuggery will make no difference simply because democracy will not last in England or France. Once the ToW is written into the constitution it won’t here either.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Dennis, you will need to remind what we even disagree about ? ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. iMP (2,385 comments) says:

    Seeing we’re trading in single anecdotal myopia as an argument for massive social engineering…

    Is this single person’s opinion as bad as the public annual Folsom Street Gay Festival?

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

    @queenstfarmer. Lawyer, are you? I noted the way you dissected my argument and discarded the part you didn’t like, unable to answer the whole. Logic chopping. Dishonest but acceptable in law if not logic.

    Wall is on record stating this will create equality in marriage and end discrimination. Her words, not mine. Will it, or won’t it?

    Nonsense anyway. Men and women can get married whether they’re homosexual or not. Two men cannot marry because they don’t qualify. That’s not a matter of equality. It simply makes a distinction between men and women. Because there is a difference.

    Since time immemorial marriage has concerned men and women, copulation and offspring. Never homosexual acts. You want to change it, you make the case and get the majority of people to accept it. You can’t. All you can do is talk about discrimination. That in itself is not enough. We discriminate all the time.

    Why do you need the same name “marriage” for civil union? To force people to endorse homosexuality.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Fletch (6,389 comments) says:

    I am still waiting to hear a single, substantive argument against gay marriage.

    I am still waiting to hear one single substantive argument FOR gay marriage based on anything but emotional appeals to “fairness” and “equality”. If you put aside the emotionality and the politically correct fear of offending anyone and actually think through the idea of same-sex marriage, the idea is actually absurd.

    I wish more people would think through the subject logically – use their intellect – instead of the overriding fear which is the reason many people subscribe to the idea.

    I mean, two men getting married… really? You’re serious?
    Think about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Fletch (6,389 comments) says:

    And what about the current discrimination of paedophiles?  It is a “natural” to them and genuine belief that it is beneficial to young children to experience sex at an early stage and certainly a condition that is definitely “not their fault”. 

    The writer of the letter does have a point. If homosexuality is innate – is a so-called “orientation”, then so is paedophilia.
    You may think the writer is making up the part about the way that some people (ie, NAMBLA) think about children experiencing sex at an early stage. You would be wrong. That is exactly what they think and they are constantly pushing for younger ages of consent.

    BLK, a leading black homosexual
    publication, defended pedophilia with an article entitled, “Must Men
    Who Love Boys Be Guilty of Sexual Misconduct?”~ Lee Savage, Must Men Who Love Boys Be Guilty of Sexual Misconduct?, BLK
    MAGAZINE, Mar. 1994, at 7-11

    San Francisco’s
    leading homosexual newspaper, The Sentinel, bluntly editorialized, “The
    love between man and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality.”~ Editorial, No Place for Homo-Homophobia, S.F. SENTINEL, Mar. 26, 1992

    In 1995, the homosexual magazine Guide stated:

    We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few
    voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are
    naturally sexual, that they deserve the right to sexual expression with
    whoever they choose . . . [w]e must listen to our prophets. Instead of
    fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is
    good, including children’s sexuality . . . . We must do it for the
    children’s sake.~ ‘The Real Child Abuse’, THE GUIDE, July 1995

    The Journal of Homosexuality is the premier academic
    journal of the mainstream homosexual world and yet it published a
    special double issue entitled, Male Intergenerational Intimacy,
    containing dozens of articles portraying sex between men and minor
    boys as loving relationships. One article states that parents should view
    the pedophile who loves their son “not as a rival or competitor, not as a
    theft of their property, but as a partner in the boy’s upbringing, someone
    to be welcomed into their home.” ~ Journal of Homosexuality (vol. 20, nos. 1/2, l990)

    So, is the writer of the letter very far off?
    I don’t think so.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (882) Says:
    April 15th, 2013 at 11:58 am

    … Wall is on record stating this will create equality in marriage and end discrimination. Her words, not mine. Will it, or won’t it?

    “Her words, not mine” – then I’m sure you can give me the quote where she said that her bill will end ALL discrimination. Can’t find such a quote? Well maybe that’s because her Bill aims to end discrimination in one specific area. It will successfully do that, and I am still waiting for any substantive argument that would outweigh removing the specific discrimination that her bill targets.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    The writer of the letter does have a point. If homosexuality is innate – is a so-called “orientation”, then so is paedophilia.

    You may think the writer is making up the part about the way that some people (ie, NAMBLA) think about children experiencing sex at an early stage. You would be wrong. That is exactly what they think and they are constantly pushing for younger ages of consent.

    And the reason NAMBLA et al should be opposed and stopped in those endeavours, Fletch, is because they are talking about doing something WRONG – preying on small children.

    If two homosexuals live together and do their thing, they are not hurting anybody and not doing anything WRONG.

    Or perhaps you think they are??

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    Fletch (4,146) Says:
    April 15th, 2013 at 12:02 pm

    I am still waiting to hear one single substantive argument FOR gay marriage based on anything but emotional appeals to “fairness” and “equality”.

    Already given you one: it removes a discrimination (nothing emotional about that). However some people seem to think that because the amendment won’t end ALL discrimination in the universe, then it shouldn’t be supported. Which is actually pretty funny, but it seems clutching at straws is all the opponents have.

    If you put aside the emotionality and the politically correct fear of offending anyone and actually think through the idea of same-sex marriage, the idea is actually absurd.

    How so? Any more ridiculous than a sham Hollywood marriage? Or an ‘open marriage’?

    I wish more people would think through the subject logically

    Happy to do so. Let’s hear your version of the logic (and your comment “really? You’re serious?” is not an appeal to logic, I’m afraid) as to why the amendment should not proceed. You’ve got mine: it removes a discrimination, and increases personal liberty, and there is no sound argument against.

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

    @queenstfarmer. I don’t record her twaddle but she has said it on TV several times. What the bill reads or achieves is another matter. She believes it introduces equality and ends discrimination.

    You are the one who wants to apply the word “marriage” to homosexual relationships. It’s up to you to persuade the rest of us that is a good idea. Simply stating it ends some discrimination is not enough. We all live with discrimination. More men are colour-blind than homosexual and must accept the consequences. Homosexuals are immature sexually and should accept the consequences. They don’t want to copulate. Fine. Don’t. Don’t get married.

    As I am sick of saying, this is not about marriage. Few will get married. This is about homosexual acts being paraded as mating.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    emotional appeals to “fairness” and “equality”.

    Heaven forbid that any nation would base its laws on such flimsy waffle as “fairness and equality” huh? ;-)

    Oh, wait on…

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Fletch (6,389 comments) says:

    Already given you one: it removes a discrimination

    Yes, it’s a discrimination, but a just discrimination. Same-sex marriage does not benefit society in any way; in fact, it harms society and definitely harms children. All SSM does is affirm a sexual coupling between two people: that’s it. And that doesn’t need to be ratified by law.

    Gay and de facto couples already have every benefit of married couples (apart from adoption). This was accomplished in 2005 with 150 amendments after Civil Unions were made legal.

    Gays are after the “marriage” label, nothing more. And, in fact, it’s not the gays who are pushing it – it’s liberal progressives in power.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. kowtow (8,475 comments) says:

    All men are Created equal

    straight back to Genesis principles. Adam and Eve,not Adam and Steve.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    So it’s all about the strength of the campaign, the cleverness of the propaganda and the number of activists. There is no recognition of the definition of marriage since time immemorial. No recognition of the special relationship between men and women? Just a lot of woolly thinking and “I want, I want it, I want it now”.

    I can marry a horse if I can get enough people to demand an end to the discrimination and inequality of marriage that will remain after the bill is passed. For pass it will, as I pass wind.

    A victory for those who know nothing of science or people.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    Yes Dennis the thing about democracy is that we get to make the laws anything we want.

    Theocracy is still widely available in many parts of the middle east. There appear to be a lot of ugly downsides to it…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Fletch (6,389 comments) says:

    As I have said before, real marriage doesn’t depend on the name “marriage” to define what it is. It is what it is independent of the name. It has an innate reality based on the relationships of the two in that union.

    Just like the words “brother” and “sister” don’t depend on those labels to define what they are. There is a reality there. An innate nature in the relationship. What if people started calling their brother their “sister”? And laws were created to enforce or allow the new definition. The word “sister” would then lose all meaning because one might actually be talking about their brother. It would ignore the reality of what the relationship actually is.

    It’s the same with marriage. Changing the definition – renaming the institution, changes its meaning. It doesn’t mean what it did before, and the new definition ignores the innate nature or reality.

    And this is only one aspect of the change. You have the social fallout as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    Fletch (4,148) Says:
    April 15th, 2013 at 12:41 pm

    … Same-sex marriage does not benefit society in any way

    In my view, ending a state discrimination is a benefit, unless there is some countervailing downside. Which brings you to…

    in fact, it harms society and definitely harms children.

    I’m curious to know how it could possibly be a fact, given that NZ has never had same-sex marriage to date. But I’m sure you are able to substantiate that… Let’s hear the facts (not assertions, opinions, bible quotes, etc).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    As I have said before, real marriage doesn’t depend on the name “marriage” to define what it is. It is what it is independent of the name. It has an innate reality based on the relationships of the two in that union.

    It’s the same with marriage. Changing the definition – renaming the institution, changes its meaning. It doesn’t mean what it did before, and the new definition ignores the innate nature or reality.

    :???: I think I’m almost as confused as you are, now…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Fletch (6,389 comments) says:

    Heaven forbid that any nation would base its laws on such flimsy waffle as “fairness and equality” huh?

    RRM, that is false.
    You’re talking about an appeal to fairness and equality without any substance.
    Is it “fair” that women can’t use a men’s toilet? Does that make them less equal?
    No, of course not.

    You have to use your intellect, too.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (884) Says:
    April 15th, 2013 at 12:34 pm
    Homosexuals are immature sexually

    Citation needed. Any medical/scientific study to support that? Or just your own prejudice?

    And immature, relative to what? Married heteros? All heteros?

    And what about bisexuals? What about a heterosexual with kids who laters “switches sides” – has he/she become immature?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    But we’re not talking about public toilets Fletch.

    We’re talking about whether the state should allow gays to “Marry” their partners or not. Currently they’re not allowed to.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Children are being taught this sick rubbish in the UK and the government is funding it. This sort of thing has occasionally been taught in NZ schools until parents find out. If you do not want to see the same thing happening here as in the UK then sign the pledge.

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

    Terrence Higgins Health Horrors

    (WARNING: This post is not for minors. There’s some stomach-churning stuff here which is mainstream, endorsed by public authorities and funded in part by you and me. It is available to our children from a recommended and apparently reputable source. It urgently needs challenging.)

    Watersports: “Watersports means letting piss get on his or your body or clothes – or in the mouth, or drinking it. Drinking plenty of beer – or water, apple or cranberry juice if you want to stay clear-headed – makes sure your urine isn’t too salty and smelly”

    Scat: “Scat is sex involving playing with shit, maybe eating it, too. Smearing shit onto healthy unbroken skin poses relatively little health risk if the person the turds came from is free of infections”

    shttp://www.alansangle.com/?p=1035

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Fletch (6,389 comments) says:

    I’m curious to know how it could possibly be a fact, given that NZ has never had same-sex marriage to date. But I’m sure you are able to substantiate that… Let’s hear the facts (not assertions, opinions, bible quotes, etc).

    No, NZ has never had same-sex marriage, but Massachusetts has since 2003, and the changes there have been bad.

    http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm_2012/

    You talk a good talk about “discrimination”. Most of those against SSM are just after keeping things as they are. That isn’t discrimination. You haven’t seen anything yet. Just wait until the law changes and then you’ll see discrimination like you’ve never seen against those who disagree with SSM.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    Oh dear Fletch, you are now talking yourself in circles.

    “real marriage doesn’t depend on the name “marriage” to define what it is. It is what it is independent of the name. It has an innate reality based on the relationships of the two in that union.”

    Nekk minute:

    “Changing the definition – renaming the institution, changes its meaning. It doesn’t mean what it did before, and the new definition ignores the innate nature or reality.”

    That’s what happens when your argument is so thin as to be unsustainable.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Correction

    http://www.alansangle.com/?p=1035

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

    Fletch (4,151) Says:

    No, NZ has never had same-sex marriage, but Massachusetts has since 2003, and the changes there have been bad.

    http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm_2012/

    Says a gay-holocaust denying outfit that compares homosexuality with bestiality.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Fletch (6,389 comments) says:

    queensfarmer, I’m talking about REAL marriage and same-sex marriage there. You can’t follow that? I thought I was quite clear. Perhaps I used “re-naming” where I meant “re-defining”. Let me change that –

    real marriage [between a man and a woman] doesn’t depend on the name [or label] of “marriage” to define [the reality of] what it is. It is what it is independent of the name. It has an innate reality based on the relationships of the two [the man and the woman] in that union.”

    Nekk minute:

    “Changing the definition – [redefining] the institution [of marriage], changes its meaning. It doesn’t mean what it did before [a union of one man and one woman and any children that result], and the new definition ignores the innate nature or reality. [of natural marriage]

    Better?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (3,287) Says:
    April 15th, 2013 at 1:01 pm

    WARNING: This post is not for minors.

    Thanks for the sex advice Chucky. I liked the health tips you included, to keep everyone safe.

    I must say I feel rather boring and uninteresting after reading your stuff.

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

    @queenstfarmer. Even you must know the vagina and the penis evolved to fit together and the rectum did not evolve to receive the penis.

    The mouth evolved to receive food. Even though much of the taste of food comes from the smell, we do not stick food up out noses. It would be considered odd to do so deliberately.

    Of course you can stick your cock anywhere you like for whatever reason, in a mincer or blender or exhaust pipe. Or cut it off, which happens. No law against it. It’s your cock.

    We are here by accident and serve no purpose in the Universe. We don’t know what “here” means. It may be just a hologram. We might have no free will; Nobel physicist Gerard ‘t Hooft might argue the Universe is predetermined, like clockwork, others might argue there is an infinity of universes.

    So I don’t really care that you can argue the law. The reality is we are here, we evolved and thus obey all physical laws and certain biological laws; homosexuality and paedophilia are both biologically absurd. That is not prejudice, it is an opinion based on a lifetime of studying people and science, an opinion which would receive broad backing by most people who had any insight into reality.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    Why do the marriage consanguinity restrictions apply to homosexuals? It isn’t as if they are going to conceive an inbred.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    homosexuality and paedophilia are both biologically absurd.

    Yes homosexuality is. So why worry about it ? It is not like they will breed us out.

    Since you used “biology” as the basis of your argument, check out this link, then tell us how young is too young, based on BIOLOGY ONLY. (bet ya don’t)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers

    “Lina Medina, from the Ticrapo District of Peru, gave birth by cesarean section in Lima at age 5 1⁄2. ”

    “Yelizaveta “Liza” Gryshchenko, who had celebrated her 6th birthday several days earlier, gave birth with the aid of forceps and retractors in Kharkov, Ukraine, after being impregnated by her 69-year-old maternal grandfather, a former sailor.”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Since you used “biology” as the basis of your argument, check out this link, then tell us how young is too young, based on BIOLOGY ONLY. (bet ya don’t)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers

    “Lina Medina, from the Ticrapo District of Peru, gave birth by cesarean section in Lima at age 5 1⁄2. ”

    “Yelizaveta “Liza” Gryshchenko, who had celebrated her 6th birthday several days earlier, gave birth with the aid of forceps and retractors in Kharkov, Ukraine, after being impregnated by her 69-year-old maternal grandfather, a former sailor.”

    Your point Kea?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Fletch (6,389 comments) says:

    AT least they were more intelligent in Australia – the gay marriage bill was defeated in their House and Senate in September last year.

    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/gay-marriage-bill-defeated-20120919-266a8.html

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    @DennisHorne, your last post is a great example of why, and how, opponents have lost this argument (in the sense that the amendment will pass).

    Conflating homosexuality and paedophilia? Check.
    Asserting that something is “absurd” or “odd” and therefore should be banned? Check.
    Asserting that “most people” agree with you? Check.
    Non-sequiturs about penises and vaginas somehow supporting your view? Check.
    Absence of any actual reason as to why two consenting adults should be barred from marrying by virtue only of gender? Check.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Your point Kea?

    It was not my point Chucky.

    Dennis was using biology as the basis for deciding moral issues. I provided some information around that biological reproductive theme, to assist him in deciding what was “moral”.

    In other words I was shit-stirring, but it does make the point. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. ciaron (1,434 comments) says:

    Dodgy 69yr old sailor knocks up 5.something yr old granddaughter, therefore, SSM.
    Now that’s a solid argument.

    For what it’s worth, the argument that some people have exceptionally short marriages is evidence of shortcomings in the individuals, not the institution.

    Whether you believe in evolution or creation, it seems obvious what the reproductive organs are for and how they are meant to work together. To say that alternative uses are “equivalent” and “normal” is just a bald faced lie.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @queenstfarmer. @Kea.

    That the penis and vagina have evolved to fit together is an observation, and just as valid as any other observation about the Universe. It is self-evident. List the scientists and doctors who says otherwise.

    Homosexuality and paedophilia are both biologically absurd; neither can ever lead to reproduction. That is not conflating homosexuality and paedophilia. (Biologically, paedophilia concerns pre-pubescent girls and boys.)

    I did not say homosexuality should be banned. I’m not interested in the moral issue, or the health issues at the moment.

    Nor did I make any moral judgement about homosexuality or paedophilia. They are both congenital abnormalities. One is now acceptable to our society and legal, one is not, based on the notion of consent.

    My argument is that homosexual relationships cannot constitute marriage because the essence of marriage is copulation and rearing offspring. I don’t want it redefined to comfort homosexuals.

    Defining paedophilia based on an age of consent is arbitrary. Biologically it means children, but when does a girl become a woman, a boy a man? From a moral aspect we consider the emotional age and the fact that young people cannot cope with manipulative adults. (That is still biology in its widest sense.)

    Nor, perhaps can I deal with manipulative lying adults. Your argument is a distortion of what I said, some of it blatantly so. Simply misquoting. It fools juries, and that is how lawyers get murderers and scumbags off.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    My argument is that homosexual relationships cannot constitute marriage because the essence of marriage is copulation and rearing offspring.

    Oh dear, that is a well-documented poor argument. Should post-menopausal women or infertile couples be banned from marriage, too?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Defining paedophilia based on an age of consent is arbitrary.

    If the ability to reproduce is the criteria (as you say) then as soon as someone is old enough to reproduce…

    I see you are now attempting to distance yourself from the uncomfortable conclusions we can draw from your agrument regarding biology and reproduction. Special pleading won’t help you now and I am not distorting anything you have said.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @queenstfarmer. Oh, goodness, here we go again, same old rubbish, infertile women. We are talking about the essence of marriage, the general case. Definitions are difficult. Cars have four wheels but some cars have three. A chair is still a chair even if a leg breaks off. Pathetic argument of the desperate, nitpicking.

    Most women and men who get married can have children, maybe with help these day, homosexuals never can, naturally, together. I am prepared to accept an infertile woman can get married, because we have defined marriage as men and women based on the essence of marriage in the general case. At some point you must draw lines, and I am not prepared to draw mine around homosexuals or animals. (Infertile women are of no particular interest to society, but children are.)

    @Kea. I didn’t mean to include you in the “abuse” sorry, I should have made a separate comment. I am not special pleading or distancing myself from anything. There are two issues. The biological age and the legal age of consent. This is recognised in some jurisdictions. For example, a 15 year old shagging a 14 year old is viewed differently from a 22 year old shagging a 15 year old.

    Biological paedophilia is a preference for pre-pubescent children, such behaviour is biologically absurd. Legal paedophilia is based on age of consent and is a moral judgement based on the supposed vulnerability of children.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    This whole gay Marriage thing has reminded me of that saying……..about cutting ones own balls off to spite their face.

    “…..Even though the phrase “don’t cut off your nose to spite your own face,” doesn’t seem to make much sense, the meaning does make sense. The phrase is an admonition not to do something that is meant to cause spite to others but only ends up causing spite to yourself…..”

    You can’t celebrate differance and sameness at the very same time.

    And Marriage is the name given to a vast series of committments that two people give to each other based upon the natural order: around conception, birth, parentage, development, maturity, sprituality and social development of children.

    And they do this till the day they die, which by then will see 3-4 generations of humans. All in good order.

    A society built upon a 2000 yld institution. Built by previous generations of societies far and wide:

    Hetrosexual societies. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Harriet (1,492) Says:
    April 15th, 2013 at 4:33 pm
    —————————————-

    What exactly is a hetrosexual society?

    We’ve had hunting and gathering, pastoral, horticultural, agricultural, feudal, industrial and post-industrial but nothing by the name of hetrosexual society has ever been defined or identified by anthropologists or sociologists.

    Perhaps you could enlighten us on where one might find an academic reference for such a society?

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

    @Dennis Horne

    We are talking about the essence of marriage, the general case

    That’s right. Everything I’ve read indicates that the vast majority of marriages will remain hetero, and (to a lesser extent) ‘childbearing’. You admit you are “prepared to accept” an exception to your asserted rationale for marrigage in one case (infertile couples), for no particular reason, but not for another (two gays or lesbians). Pointing this out is not desparate or nitpicking, it shows up your argument as weak, and demonstrates why opponents of SSM have lost. Get over it.

    Also, reminded me of another argument: lesbians can have kids. More common than you might think actually. Yes, a male (not necessarily straight) is required, but given than a huge percentange of kids are already born out of wedlock, that can hardly count against SSM.

    because we have defined marriage as men and women based on the essence of marriage in the general case

    Who’s “we”? You mean society? Or parliament? Either way, it’s good that you aren’t taking the “God says” approach. If society or parliament “defined” marriage, then they can change it. And so they will, everyone will blink three times and move on to the next storm in a teacup.

    At some point you must draw lines

    Sure. And redraw them, unless you’re an Old Testament sort.

    and I am not prepared to draw mine around homosexuals or animals.

    Why are you now talking about animals?

    Bill O’Reilly was right. This whole approach by SSM opponents is a case study in how to lose a policy argument and alienate moderates.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    A society built upon a 2000 yld institution.

    ??

    Our societies have been built over a much longer period of time than that.

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

    >blockquote>Harriet (1,492) Says:
    April 15th, 2013 at 4:33 pm

    …And Marriage is the name given to a vast series of committments that two people give to each other based upon the natural order: around conception, birth, parentage, development, maturity, sprituality and social development of children.

    Just because it exists in one form in certain societies does not mean it cannot change. We have kings and queens that have married their brothers and sisters – not to mention the same behaviour in many other noble families – society changed and that became illegal. To argue that we must leave everything the same because that is how it has been for 2000 years – is not true – it wasn’t always like it is now.

    Are you promoting taking it back to how it was ? You’d like to marry your sibling?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @queenstfarmer. My logic is impeccable.

    Step 1. I define marriage based on the essence of marriage since time immemorial, copulation and rearing any children. Men and women. It denies homosexuals marrying each other, none qualify. They can’t get married.

    Step 2. Consider objections. Infertile men and women. We have already defined marriage as between men and women and so they meet the criterion. They qualify. They can get married.

    Step 3. Consider expanding marriage to include homosexual acts. It fundamentally changes the definition of marriage. Like including trucks in the category of buses. No. Leave marriage as it is.

    Yes, I know about homosexual men and women who produce children. Good idea, is it?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    @Denis Horne: your step 1, saying that marriage has been defined this way since time immemorial and therefore you do not want to change it, is not logic, let alone “impeccable logic”. Do you suppose that wives should still be considered chattels of their husbands, because that’s how it was “since time immemorial”, and was also a key part of marriage?

    The very foundation of your argument is weak.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    “…..Just because it exists[Marriage] in one form in certain societies does not mean it cannot change…..”

    Gays arn’t exactly strengthening the institution of Marriage Judith.

    It’s only ever survived because it is based upon reproduction. It’s central feature has ALWAYS been reproduction between a male and female, along of course with the likes of emotional matters around hetrosexuality. ‘Love’ of each other has lead to reproduction.

    Some hetrosexuals have emotional matters around not being able to have children, but that has not been Marriages central feature. But their issues are still one of hetrosexuality.

    Gays have nothing to do with that. They don’t have ‘emotions’ around the issue of hetrosexuality: reproduction[or non-reproduction in the case of infertile couples] and the love of the opposite sex.

    Hetrosexuality and reproduction in a Marriage arn’t mutually exclusive Judith!

    But homosexuality and reproduction in a Marriage -between two people who are infact Married – are.

    Gays arn’t getting ‘Married’ anytime too soon Judith. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Harriet (1,493) Says:
    April 15th, 2013 at 5:28 pm

    It’s only ever survived because it is based upon reproduction. It’s central feature has ALWAYS been reproduction between a male and female, along of course with the likes of emotional matters around hetrosexuality. ‘Love’ of each other has lead to reproduction.

    ——————————-

    Rubbish – absolute rubbish. There have been successful marriages in which there has been no reproduction or attempts to reproduce. It is NOT based on reproduction and emotional matters of ‘love’ can be felt just the same in homosexual relationships.

    You make us all sound like bloody breeding machines, as if sex and babies are the only reason for our being. Personally I hope to leave a larger legacy for my existence than my children and grandchildren.

    What you are actually saying is an insult – if a person is unable to ‘reproduce’ then they don’t matter, their existence if futile and there is no purpose to their life.

    Sorry to disappoint you, but you are wrong – gays will be getting married – the only thing I’m sure of is your name won’t be on the guest list.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    “…..Rubbish – absolute rubbish….”

    Hetrosexual and homosexual relationships are entirely differant because they deal with entirely differant matters Judith.

    Gay relationships are mutually exclusive of reproduction. Hetrosexual ones are not.

    Like I said: Even for those hetrosexuals who are infertile – it’s still a hetrosexual matter.

    And that matter too is mutually exclusive from homosexual relationships.

    Homosexuality has nothing to do with hetrosexuality.

    And that’s why we arn’t changing the meanings of those names under ‘equality’ legislation Judith!

    Even the law knows that they’re differant Judith, but under ‘Marriage law’ they’re the same? !

    Rubbish – absolute rubbish. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. wat dabney (3,756 comments) says:

    Where’s the love?

    Live and let live

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    One thing for sure, Judith.
    Whenever I read these words on the internet “What you are actually saying is .. ..” the only thing I know for sure in all of life is that what follows is not going to be what the person was actually saying – nor anything like what they were actually saying.
    Sure enough, right on cue, Judith.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Robo (24 comments) says:

    This isn’t about marriage (a pretty bedraggled institution in any event) – its about culture wars. Its a demonstration that those who win the war call the shots – in this case to decide where the line is.
    The traditionalists can argue from custom, nature and history. So the onus should be on those who want change.
    That includes proving the new boundary should be set at gay couples rather than, say, at threesomes. But saying marriage of course requires only two people takes you back to tradition, nature, and procreation. Hence the absence of argument.
    Denying the self evident rightness of gay marriage will soon become hate speech.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Harriet (1,494) Says:
    April 15th, 2013 at 5:51 pm

    Hetrosexual and homosexual relationships are entirely differant because they deal with entirely differant matters Judith.

    Gay relationships are mutually exclusive of reproduction.

    —————————————–

    You are doing it again – you just don’t seem to get it – or rather don’t want to because it doesn’t suit your agenda.

    There are many many couples today that are choosing not to reproduce, but still get married.

    I’m sorry, but statistics and reality prove you wrong,

    plus you are insulting those of us whose marriages are far more than reproduction and were in fact performed (marriage) without any consideration for reproduction but rather because we wanted to be together – with or without children.

    You are an absolute insult to both men and women by trying to claim that our marriages have no other purpose.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Raging Glory (45 comments) says:

    The idea that politicians could start moves to legalize pedophilia seems far fetched until you consider how they will go about it. What they will do is say “we need to bring the age of consent down to 12. Its so that they can get access to quality healthcare, they are doing it anyway” etc etc. And as for Louisa Wall’s guarantees that people of religious groups will not be forced to tow the line, well the assurances of any politician at any time are worthless. Within 12 months of this nonsense passing, as I am sure it will (its just the kind of petulant debauchery that appeals to the reprobate minds of our parliament, our politicians are scum of the earth basically), you will see persecution of religious groups who must be seen not only to be defeated, but also humiliated. Well, guess what homos, you will still feel guilty after this nonsense comes into “law”, it will be a hollow victory and you will have won nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    “….There are many many couples today that are choosing not to reproduce, but still get married….”

    Judith, most couples in history who said that and went on and got Married: eventually had children.

    Those couples who don’t have children are a statistical abberation.

    But the point is this: Those who do then decide to have children, or by accident[condom failure] do have children, are already in the institution that has afforded children and women a better level of welfare than other relationship forms ever have. Children thrive.

    Marriage is the best form of welfare for women and children that mankind has ever known: Marriage does not fail people, but rather, people fail Marriage.

    And it is with these types of immature attitudes: ‘we’re not having children’ that weakens the institution of Marriage.

    Soon Marriage will simply come to mean:

    besties4eva Judith! :cool: :cool: :cool:

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

    queenstfarmer (360) Says: April 15th, 2013 at 5:16 pm
    @Denis Horne: your step 1, saying that marriage has been defined this way since time immemorial and therefore you do not want to change it, is not logic, let alone “impeccable logic”.

    For God’s sake man, I didn’t say it was defined this way since time immemorial I said step 1 is to define marriage based on the essence of marriage since time immemorial. For reasons I have outline elsewhere, but principally to protect women and children; oblige men to take responsibility for their families. By attempting to introduce other properties of marriage that are irrelevant today you are setting up a straw man. I can see your lack of attention to detail by not noticing the spelling of “Dennis”, queerstfarmer.

    Show me that marriage has never and does not everywhere concern copulation and rearing any offspring.

    If we analysed the Universe you the way you think we can we would still be living in caves dragging women around by their hair. (Their pussies fill up with soil otherwise, if you just drag them by a leg.)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Reid (16,457 comments) says:

    Judith: “he who says A must say B.”

    Lenin.

    This is what happened. Lenin and the rest of them wanted to redefine heterosexuality. They decided to do that by redefining marriage.

    Thus they introduced contraception in the 1920’s to make childless marriages common.

    Once that bedded in, in the 1970’s they introduced no fault divorce on demand. This made marriage temporary so many people now have multiple marriages. No more “till death do us part.”

    Once that bedded in, in the 2010’s they introduce gays into the marriage circle.

    Next is to get rid of mother and father and start using parent 1 and parent 2 and they’ll make sex ed give equal airtime to “blended” families.

    That’s how it works and that’s what they’re doing.

    You don’t see it because all you focus on is the tewwible twagedy of the “discwimination” as you see it. What discwimination, BTW? Adoption? Fine. Let’s have a gay adoption debate. We don’t need to touch marriage to have that, do we. Others don’t see it because they focus on the immediate timeframe and their own situation, failing to understand what the game is about.

    Thus Lenin’s dictum has become “He who says A and B must say C.” We, society, caved on contraception and we caved on divorce. Thus it’s very hard to mount a coherent defence, since we’ve already said A and B. That’s what they’re doing.

    Too bad there are so many useful idiots out there.

    Your grandchildren won’t thank you, BTW. When they survey society in 2050, they’ll see nothing but devastation. Divorce and sex and twisted values as far as the eye can see. No real families in sight. They’re but a distant memory.

    That’s what you fools who approve of this are voting for.

    Congratulations.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Fletch (6,389 comments) says:

    Oh dear, that is a well-documented poor argument. Should post-menopausal women or infertile couples be banned from marriage, too?

    Time to jump in with my quote from Alan Keyes.

    The word “principle” means, relating to the definition of; not relating to particular circumstances. So if an apple has a worm in it, the worm is not part of the definition of the apple; it doesn’t change what the apple is in principle. [...] Human beings reason by concepts and definitions; we also make laws by concepts and definitions. And if you don’t know how to operate with respect for the definitions, you can’t make the law. An individual who is impotent, or another who is infertile does not change the definition of marriage in principle.

    Because between a man and a woman – in principle – procreation is always possible. And it is that possibility that gave rise to the institution of marriage in the first place. But when it is impossible, as between two males or two females – you’re talking about something that is not just incidentally impossible, it’s impossible in principle. That means that if you are saying, ‘that is a marriage’, you are saying that marriage can be understood in principle apart from procreation. You have changed it’s definition in such a way as, in fact, to destroy the necessity for the institution, since the only reason it has existed in human societies and civilizations is to regulate, from a social point of view, the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation.

    So if you start playing games in this way, you are acting as if the institution has no basis independent of your own arbitrary whim.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    For goodness sake we wouldn’t need to even try to define marriage if some activist homosexuals hadn’t demanded we call civil union “marriage”. It was always considered self-evident marriage concerned men and women, just as it’s self-evident (liguid) water is wet. Note how I had to say “liquid”, otherwise the nitpickers and sidetrackers say solid or gaseous water is not “wet” and think they’ve made an argument.

    Oh, well, I look forward to the Chinese taking control of NZ, in about 20 years.

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

    Harriet (1,495) Says:
    April 15th, 2013 at 6:30 pm

    But the point is this: Those who do then decide to have children, or by accident[condom failure] do have children, are already in the institution that has afforded children and women a better level of welfare than other relationship forms ever have. Children thrive.

    Marriage is the best form of welfare for women and children that mankind has ever known: Marriage does not fail people, but rather, people fail Marriage.

    And it is with these types of immature attitudes: ‘we’re not having children’ that weakens the institution of Marriage.

    ——————————

    You HAVE to be taking the Piss.
    “Marriage is the best form of welfare for women and children that ‘mankind’ has ever known”

    Mankind might see it to his advantage, but I can assure the statistics indicated that ‘humankind’ does not.
    Does the term ‘wife bashing’ not turn a light on for you? Male assault female charges indicate husbands assault their wives in alarming numbers – where is the ‘welfare’ in that?

    Children thrive? Really? Would you like to produce statistics that prove children in marriages thrive better than those that are not – I point to our PM as just one example, who was raised by a solo mother (widowed when he was 7 years of age) There was no husband, in fact they were separated. Mr Key snrs was living elsewhere when he died – his drinking etc becoming too much for the institution of marriage which you say is so very good for all concerned.

    According to you it is immature not to have children? It is irresponsible to have children you do not want just to please people like you – especially when you cannot afford to raise them, and are not prepared to be a loving and caring parent.
    Your statement is ridiculous. Having children when you don’t want them is the very worst thing you can do, for all involved, but especially the children. No wonder we have so many abused children in NZ with those types of attitudes.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Your grandchildren won’t thank you, BTW. When they survey society in 2050, they’ll see nothing but devastation. Divorce and sex and twisted values as far as the eye can see. No real families in sight. They’re but a distant memory.

    I’m sorry, but the type of society you describe is ‘today’. I do not see real families in many places. I see children sitting in front of a screen and parents doing all they can to make sure they are entertained by some sort of toy, rather than actually spending time as a family. I see parents who work as many hours as possible to provide their children with these electronic babysitters.

    I see very few families who play together and spend time interacting. In modern times the degeneration of the family started a few decades ago – long before homosexual marriage was ever mentioned. Divorce rates (for those that even bother to get married) are high, and sex? Well yes sex rates are high – many people enjoy the activity but as far as I know, its not illegal to have sex in most situations.

    Twisted values? Depends on whose values you are ‘twisting’ doesn’t it. We clearly have different values – who is to say whose is right?

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

    Judith, if it wasn’t for the largess of the taxpayer and overseas banks’ supply of fake money children without mothers and fathers staying together to look after them would be in dire straits. As happens to animals in the wild.

    Marriages might not be perfect by any stretch of the imagination and that’s a very good reason for working on the importance of marriage not turning it into a joke. Let’s face it, when Alison Mau announced she was leaving her husband and getting engaged to be married to a woman everyone I know giggled and laughed, especially the women.

    I’m quite sure John Key would have rather had a loving and effective father living at home with the family. He is an exceptional man who had an exceptional mother. Clever people, the Jews.

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

    @Judith. You want to know who’s right and wrong? Judith, you’re always wrong. Brave though. No one ticking your box yet you still come for more… ;) ;) ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (892) Says:
    April 15th, 2013 at 7:14 pm
    ——————————

    Don’t tell me you are here just to have people tick your box?

    For gods sake, this is a right wing blog – I’m not right wing – in fact I’m not left either, I’m actually in a position staring up the arse of the right. I do not expect people to agree with me – what is the point of blogging if everyone was to think and feel the same way?

    I’m happy to say we don’t think alike and don’t agree – they day I find myself thinking just like you – I’ll euthanise myself – promise! ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    I’m quite sure John Key would have rather had a loving and effective father living at home with the family. He is an exceptional man who had an exceptional mother. Clever people, the Jews.

    John Key’s father was a drunk – his parents did not get on. There was no ‘love’ apparently but rather fights and overspending causing financial difficulties. JK says he cannot even remember his father. His success was due to his mothers influence. No happy marriage there to quote to support your cause Dennis.

    John Key is an example of the opposite to marriage – he succeeded because his father was not around. ;-) Goodness knows what he might have become if he had the example of a drunken money waster as an influence during his informative years.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Judith. I don’t have a box, that was my point, Judith. ;)

    I will repeat what I said: “I’m quite sure John Key would have rather had a loving and effective father living at home with the family.”

    Now, Judith, tell me how your claim his father was a useless drunk who left the family negates that statement. Take your time. Think first.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    Feel like you’re getting anywhere Dennis? Have the tides changed since your early start this morning?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    John Key is an example of the opposite to marriage – he succeeded because his father was not around. Goodness knows what he might have become if he had the example of a drunken money waster as an influence during his informative years.

    Leader of the Labour party ?

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

    @Judith. No fear you’ll ever think like me, Judith, you don’t have the eyesight or manual dexterity. You can’t see the wood for the trees and you keep getting the wrong end of the stick. :) :) :)

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

    Dennis Horne (893) Says:
    April 15th, 2013 at 7:32 pm
    ————————-

    John Key has a very successful life and succeed to fulfill his childhood dream of being the Prime Minister of New Zealand. He also has a great deal of money and a lovely wife who he seems very happy with.

    I am sure John Key is perfectly happy as he is and would not want to change anything about his life for fear that if he did, he may not have achieved the things that make him happy.

    Personally I couldn’t think of a worse job to have – but different folks different strokes.

    I get your point but when it comes to John Key, someone who is confident happy, and rich – I don’t think he would change a thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kea (3,260) Says:
    April 15th, 2013 at 8:08 pm

    Leader of the Labour party ?

    —————————–

    Funny you should say that – if his mother had her way, that’s exactly what he would have been!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Yvette (2,820 comments) says:

    A wedding vow is surely what defines its intent.
    Usual form is roughly –
    I, ______, take you, ______, to be my wife (or husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part,

    So sharing and supporting, in all circumstances, to the exclusion of all others of the same intimacy.
    Doesn’t mention children.
    Those who haven’t married – de facto couples for example – are said, rightly or wrong, to not have been prepared the make that “commitment”, usually referring to marriage’s exclusivity and supposed permanence.
    Why is this not discussed here at all as what defines a marriage
    instead of whether penises are evolved to be stuffed in only one “natural” oriface?

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

    @Judith. Okay, Judith, let’s abandon marriage and encourage fathers to abandon their families. Wait. We’d all end up prime minister. That would never do. Judith, are you blonde?

    @Nostalgia. Sorry, I can’t play with you presently, I’m in Judith’s sandpit.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. pq (728 comments) says:

    you are out of your depth here Farrar, well out of your depth

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    That’s all right Dennis, enjoy yourself and make sure before you drive the big truck into the sand castle that you go ‘brrm, brrm’ first – otherwise it wont count.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Reid (16,457 comments) says:

    Why is this not discussed here at all as what defines a marriage

    I just did at 6:34 Yvette which was a summarised repeat of my same post on last week’s gay marriage effort, only because some people apparently didn’t get it the first time.

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

    @Nostalgia It’s the tunnel I seek to enter, Nosty. That’s why you’re of no interest. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Top” piss take” letter. One of the best I’ve seen

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    12 hr’s later and the god bothering crazies are still at it, you’d be excused for thinking they had nothing else to do…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    expat (3,908) Says:
    April 15th, 2013 at 8:38 pm
    12 hr’s later and the god bothering crazies are still at it, you’d be excused for thinking they had nothing else to do…

    ——————————-

    It is the only way they get to legitimately talk dirty. Its a kind of service to the community to encourage them.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Reid (16,457 comments) says:

    12 hr’s later and the god bothering crazies are still at it, you’d be excused for thinking they had nothing else to do…

    And yet in 156 responses I don’t believe anyone’s even mentioned religion, until you just did expat.

    Try not to let your prejudice get in the way, won’t you. Appawentwy, that’s discwimination. You must be a weally tewwible person. All that hatwed just bursting inside of your tummy.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    None of the god bothering crazies want to mention religion because they are ashamed of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Johnboy (16,554 comments) says:

    I could write a far more repugnant letter than that. It would involve amusing things you do with sheep etc! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    The few gays that may choose to marry will not undermine the traditional family.

    The real issue, around collapse of the traditional family unit, is heterosexual women being paid to fuck and pump out babies with no means of supporting them. This is sponsored and encouraged by the State using our tax dollars.

    Yet I do not see the same level of debate around that issue, even though it has done incredible harm to our society. It is responsible for a lot of problems our society faces, but does not seem to get the conservatives blood boiling like a couple of tax paying financially productive queers shacking up together.

    Why is that ?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Johnboy (16,554 comments) says:

    You don’t think it may have something to with the fact that the major percentage are Murri women Kea and National is trying not to look too racist or anything? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Reid (16,457 comments) says:

    The few gays that may choose to marry will not undermine the traditional family.

    You mean just like contraception and divorce on demand hasn’t undermined the traditional family Kea? Or are they “different?”

    Somehow?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    @Dennis Horne

    I don’t know who you are, but your comments perfectly encapsulate the anti-SSM viewpoint – non-sequiters, logic fails, name-calling, obsession with body parts, bizarre conflation of homosexuality with bestiality, bald assertions, claiming support of “the people”, inability to explain reasoning, etc. No wonder the anti-SSM lobby has been trounced. You have brought it on yourselves by being unable to articulate rational reasons for opposing it, and alienating people. I can only imagine you have done more to undermine your own cause than your opponents.

    Are you involved with Family First perchance?

    For God’s sake man, I didn’t say it was defined this way since time immemorial I said step 1 is to define marriage based on the essence of marriage since time immemorial.

    So step 1 in your argument for keeping the status quo is… to define marriage based on the status quo. Another logic fail.

    principally to protect women and children

    Protect women and children? Right, let’s take just one. How does allowing two men to get married make women more vulnerable, such that they need “protecting”? And protection from whom?

    It was always considered self-evident marriage concerned men and women

    Yes, isn’t it funny that when marriage by law has always meant a man and a woman, that it was self-evident that marriage always concerned men and women. What faultless logic, Dennis!

    You lose all day long with such weak arguments.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Reid (13,456) Says:
    April 15th, 2013 at 8:59 pm
    The few gays that may choose to marry will not undermine the traditional family.

    You mean just like contraception and divorce on demand hasn’t undermined the traditional family Kea? Or are they “different?”

    Somehow?

    No I do not mean. Which is why I did not say it. You are adding to my point, not detracting from it, as you intended.

    Those things, in concert with the DPB created the mess we are in. It has been pushed by feminists as is the gay issue. Your enemy is not queers, it is feminist women and you are too brain washed to see it.

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

    Johnboy, those young Maori girls are not stupid. If they can get the money making babies instead of working, of course they will take the opportunity.

    If you paid me as much to fuck as to work, I would do it to ! Who would not ?

    This is ripping the guts out of our society and costing big money that we do not have. Yet many think poofs playing mummy and daddy is the real issue around collapse of the traditional family. That is just mental and shows how feminised our society has become.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Reid (16,457 comments) says:

    Your enemy is not queers, it is feminist women and you are too brain washed to see it.

    Actually Kea I’ve been pointing to the feminists since day one of this debate and I’ve referred to them hundreds of times in hundreds of posts. Of course I see it. The gays are merely useful idiots. I’ve always known that and if you ever bothered to read anything I’ve said on this you would have learned that’s what I thought and always have thought, dating back a few years ago when this topic started raising its ugly head on KB and before it even started being discussed here.

    I don’t buy your DPB thesis, since I see that as a mere symptom, a mere outcome, of the engineering that has been taking place for more than a century. In that context it’s a minor pimple. Yes it’s reflective of the situation, yes it’s not beneficial, but is it a root cause? No. Those lie elsewhere.

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

    Reid, ok we agree then. ;)

    Even Redbaiter, who prides himself on sniffing out lefties, is too thick to see that almost all of the things he is disturbed by have been advanced by women with an axe to grind.

    Most women are not like that, but the few who are run rampant in our society. Both male and female suffer as a result.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Why is this not discussed here at all as what defines a marriage … ?

    IMO it is because de jure marriage is defined by common law, not by legislation.
    Common law marriage is the lawful union of a man and a woman, it is not done by licence as a civil union.
    The ethical gulf between common law and the civil system used by parliament is incredibly problematic for the state.
    Why would the state lie about the nature of common law if it had nothing to fear from it?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    What is the state without parliament? Is democratic consent a threat to both “natural” common law and Crown?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    More weak minded men threatened by a few feminists … if being born (Greeks name Pandora as the first woman) a male makes you paranoid then join the homosexuals and cohabit with each other.

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

    @Kea. I agree with you about the DPB but it is a consequence of the weakening of the institution of marriage in society.

    I would like to see people holding a marriage licence before breeding and a formal contract between individuals and the state. There is no discipline and we are in trouble; the excesses of permissiveness are not sustainable.

    The homosexual marriage is a sideshow.

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

    queenstfarmer (361) Says: April 15th, 2013 at 9:17 pm
    @Dennis Horne
    I don’t know who you are …

    You don’t know who I am. Are you serious? You write under a pseudonym and you start your preamble “I don’t know who you are”. Not much situational awareness, eh?

    I am entitled to analyse marriage, to define it as best I can, and certainly say what it isn’t. Marriage has a biological foundation, whatever legal constructs surround it. Marriage exists without the law anyway, it’s called “common law marriage”. Marriage has never permitted homosexual acts. This has been considered self-evident since time immemorial. Yes, bald assertions. Like, “Look, there’s the Sun.”

    Now, what about arguing from first principles and making a case instead of telling me my arguments are flawed and hopeless. You just talk utter rubbish. Marriage is about bodies. Homosexuality, paedophilia and bestiality are all manifestations of abnormal sexual development and behaviour. Not much of a farmer, are you. I never said anything about the support of “the people”. More logic chopping.

    Explain to me why you think a small minority who don’t even want to get married should be able to completely alter the meaning of marriage. And why.

    So far your argument seems to be homosexuals want to call their relationship marriage and we can change the law to allow it, so we will because it will reduce discrimination and do no harm.

    Marriage is already in trouble. Women are in trouble, at least the ones who want a traditional family. Men won’t make the commitment and abandon them easily. How will mocking marriage by letting a couple men call themselves “husbands” help society? You don’t think that perhaps it might turn the institution of marriage, still the best environment for children generally speaking, into a bit of a joke, like “homosexual marriage” itself?

    Reality is not the law. Reality exists independent of man, as least I believe it does, that’s an article of faith true, and simply saying we will make this so does not make it so.

    Even Kea knows homosexual marriage is nonsense; he just dismisses it as harmless nonsense. Whereas you, you really believe you can redefine the concept of marriage by changing the law yet it won’t actually change marriage. Rrriiiight.

    It’s childish twaddle like NZ declaring itself nuclear-free. It’s only nuclear free if nuclear powers decide not to come here. It’s like throwing bread on the lawn and putting up a sign No Sparrows.

    “This” (Whatever) now be marriage. It’s democratic. Get the support, the numbers, and marry your horse.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    THINGS ARE NOT ALWAYS WHAT THEY SEEM IN THE REAL WORLD

    The IRS decides to audit Grandpa, and summon him to the IRS office.

    The IRS auditor was not surprised when Grandpa showed up with his attorney.

    The auditor said, ‘Well, sir, you have an extravagant lifestyle and no full-time employment which you explain by saying that you win money gambling. I’m not sure the IRS finds that believable.’

    I’m a great gambler, and I can prove it,’ says Grandpa. ‘How about a demonstration?’

    The auditor thinks for a moment and said, ‘Okay. Go ahead.’

    Grandpa says, ‘I’ll bet you a thousand dollars that I can bite my own eye.’

    The auditor thinks a moment and says, ‘It’s a bet.’

    Grandpa removes his glass eye and bites it. The auditor’s jaw drops.

    Grandpa says, ‘Now, I’ll bet you two thousand dollars that I can bite my other eye.’

    Now the auditor can tell Grandpa isn’t blind, so he takes the bet.

    Grandpa removes his dentures and bites his good eye.

    The stunned auditor now realizes he has wagered and lost three grand, with Grandpa’s attorney as a witness. He starts to get nervous.

    ‘Want to go double or nothing?’ Grandpa asks ‘I’ll bet you six thousand dollars that I can stand on one side of your desk, and pee into that wastebasket on the other side, and never get a drop anywhere in between.’

    The auditor, twice burned, is cautious now, but he looks carefully and decides there’s no way this old guy could possibly manage that stunt, so he agrees again.

    Grandpa stands beside the desk and unzips his pants, but although he strains mightily, he can’t make the stream reach the wastebasket on the other side, so he pretty much urinates all over the auditor’s desk.

    The auditor leaps with joy, realizing that he has just turned a major loss into a huge win.

    But Grandpa’s own attorney moans and puts his head in his hands.

    ‘Are you okay?’ the auditor asks.

    ‘Not really,’ says the attorney. ‘This morning, when Grandpa told me he’d been summoned for an audit, he bet me twenty-five thousand dollars that he could come in here and piss all over your desk and that you’d be happy about it!’

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. ciaron (1,434 comments) says:

    Same joke.

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

    What is the state without parliament?

    Judiciary, lawyers, teachers, police, and defence forces acting in the Crown’s interests.

    Is democratic consent a threat to both “natural” common law and Crown?

    Why would it be a threat to common law?
    It is a threat to the Crown because it acts in the interests of the people, not the interests of the Crown.

    Consent, as contractual agreement, makes the law, but this implies informed consent, which does not exist when the state misleads people about the nature of the agreement. If there is no lawful purpose then there is no contract and therefore no law arising from it. Agreement without lawful purpose is conspiracy.

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

    “This” (Whatever) now be marriage. It’s democratic. Get the support, the numbers, and marry your horse.

    It’s not democratic unless lawful purpose exists. If there’s no lawful purpose then it’s mob rule.

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

    @Ugly Truth. I mean get the numbers and change the law. I realise that is not going to happen with horses, but that’s exactly what has happened with homosexuals. They demanded wanking, buggery and nothing to be called “marriage” and we’re going to do so,

    And then we’re supposed to tell out sons to do the decent thing, get married and stay married. Or, perhaps we’re not.

    No, Son, do what you like. Shag around and get a new model when you feel like it. Kids? Forget ‘em. They’ll probably all grow up to be prime ministers.

    I mean, civilisation is the natural state of the world and democracy a weed that grows everywhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    @Dennis Horne,

    Your arguments (applying that term most loosely) have steadily retreated throughout the course of this thread. You have now set up a last bastion of asserting that your argument is so obviously right, you don’t need to justify it. And indeed you haven’t been able to substantiate any of your assertions, which is why you now resort to claiming “self-evidence”.

    Although in doing so, you still demonstrate logic fails:

    Marriage exists without the law anyway, it’s called “common law marriage”.

    Um, common law = law :-)

    I never said anything about the support of “the people”

    Yes you did: … an opinion which would receive broad backing by most people who had any insight into reality …. But I accept if you retract those unevidenced assertions.

    Explain to me why you think a small minority who don’t even want to get married should be able to completely alter the meaning of marriage. And why.

    I don’t. I question your comprehension abilities that you think I did. Parliament (representing the people, for better or for worse) makes the law in this regard, not some small minority (who are you even referring to there?). I would also be fine if they put this one to referendum.

    Get the support, the numbers, and marry your horse.

    Oh dear, you seem to have bestiality on your mind to an unhealthy degree, Dennis. I was not aware anyone was proposing a human-horse marriage amendment. Concluding with a hypothetical that no-one is even suggesting is always a sign of a lost argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @queenstfarmer. Yes, you have given me a beating. That is the problem when you are trying to make sense of nonsense rather than just demolish bits of others’ arguments.

    The discussion about marrying a horse demonstrates an exact parallel of what’s happened; the arguments would be the same. Don’t try pulling the stunt that I am interested in bestiality, that argument is just as full of holes. :)

    Are you a lawyer? Right or wrong and good and bad are not the issues, the issue is winning. I know you did not state a personal view, I was slack saying you explain why “you” think a small minority should be able to change the meaning of marriage, I should have phrased it differently.

    In talking about broad backing of people who have some insight into reality, I am talking about my friends and acquaintances. People trained in science, mathematics, engineering, medicine, dentistry; mostly.

    Yes, common law is the law, you got me there. It’s not what I meant though, is it. It’s not what people generally mean when they used to say, “They’re not married, she’s just his common law wife.” They meant legally married.

    Yes, you can run rings around me, demanding references and essentially denying some things are self-evident.

    So I haven’t made a good argument. Now prove to me that that proves I am wrong. (Yes, I know you didn’t say it did.)

    Otherwise I will simply go on believing this is just a “stampede”. Chaos theory might apply. Fashion. That there is nothing rational about it. Political humbug, like the invasion of Iraq. Homosexuals usurping the word “marriage” so buggery becomes a dinner party conversation topic. “G’day, John, your son happy with his new husband (read fuck-buddy)? How are the children?”

    I thank you for showing the deficiencies in my debating. Tomorrow I will go and do something useful and meaningful. Maintenance on my aircraft engine. My life depends on it, and it will break the cycle of my obsession with trying to be a good and decent person concerned about our society instead of wasting my time. After all, who gives a fuck?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    ciaron (916) Says: “April 16th, 2013 at 8:03 am”
    “Same joke.”

    Sorry. ciaron. Dennis just shared a joke with us.
    Why do you feel the need to spoil Dennis’ version of it?

    Some humourless people just can’t help spoiling other people’s jokes.
    No wonder few people want to tell jokes any more.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    QSF, no matter what you say of Dennis, your criticism of his comments reflects your stupidity, QSF, not on him. Your saying Dennis’ comments are not up to scratch, does not make them so, even if you do resort to your ultimate weapon – that of use of the term “last bastion of …” OoooOOoooo. So clever with words. “last bastion” even ….. ….. Can I use “last bastion” too please? It will at least triple my cred.

    I happen to think Dennis’ arguments here are among the best I have ever seen on either side of this debate. And you, QSF, are a fool.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Griff (7,715 comments) says:

    Dennis shows the fundie bigotry we so love on KB.
    Guess what bigot woman can be homos.
    They dont as far as I know do buggery any more than any other women do.
    Get your filthy fundie mind of bum fucking bigot.
    Think of carpet munching and mutual pleasure not sodomy sicko christ stain
    Love not sex is the basis for marriage in the real world.
    of course for fundies its only about the fucking as they often tell us

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    Griff (and others),

    Again with the homo-lovers being the only ones to mention ‘religion’, while accusing their opponents of arguing from a religious perspective.

    Hello~o

    The only ones mentioning religion in this entire 190 comment thread, are homo-lusters.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Griff (7,715 comments) says:

    Yes I would love to share my bed with a couple of acting lesbo type homos again. it was fun last time just watching :lol:
    As soon as U C homo = bumsex you just know the thinking is driven by “god” inspired religious bigotry.
    Nothing like the church to spread hate and bigotry while raping choir boys is condoned. Seems fucking under age boys is not homo if a priest does it:lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    Sorry, Griff, but I see a lot of ‘hate and bigotry’ in your two comments. Indeed, I see more ‘hate and bigotry’ in each of your 2 comments than in the entirety of the previous 190 comments. The debate was civilised till your hate and bigotry against the church arrived. And I’m an all-the-way athiest .

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Griff (7,715 comments) says:

    Yes I really hate bigots who think their business includes the sexuality of strangers and I also hate Christ stain bigots who think they have a god given right to tell me or any one who they can fuck or marry.
    Fucking animals and bum sex have nothing to do with marriage equality. Dennis is a bigot because he confuses homosexuality with anal sex.

    WOMEN CAN BE GAY homosexuals are not just men who fuck bums.
    8:17 am

    marriage has concerned copulation and rearing any offspring

    As I said fucken christ stains think marriage is just procreation.
    I hope that most normal (not christstain)people have a more healthy idea of marriage than just fucking and kids.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    Calm down, hater.
    What about me telling you that as an athiest, I don’t have any problem with where you put your dick (or with whom a woman gets her jollies). Your problem.
    But speaking as an athiest, I have a problem with your need to change my language. You can couple up with whomever you like. Just don’t call it what has forever been called ‘marriage’ – this particular word always having described an institution between a man and a woman.
    Get your own word. The word “Marriage” has already been taken.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Griff (7,715 comments) says:

    This particular word almost always having described an institution between a man and a woman
    Or a man and many woman.
    or even in a historical case a man and his horse.
    Its a word and sorry to say you dont own it .
    Society does and ours has decided by a majority that two woman or two men can use it.
    You lost suck it up and change or die

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    I have to say that I was mightily impressed with Dennis’ analogy of trucks and buses.

    Trucks and buses run on the same running gear and have the same engines. But one carries people and the other carries things other than people.

    And it doesn’t matter how much the law might change to say that the word ‘bus’ now includes all trucks, buses will still only carry people to speakers of everyday English.

    And a male will never be married to a male. Yes, there will be a legal anomaly for a while in the statute books, but we will never, ever, ever accept it for the duration of the anomaly – which fortunately will not be long.

    All that will have happened by this time tomorrow is that you will have given people who already hate you – more reason to hate you – and to be reminded of it daily. Congratulations on your pyrrhic victory.

    In recent times I have ignored you. As from tomorrow, every time I pick up a newspaper there will be a reminder of why I hate you. You should have left well alone..

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

    Get your own word. The word “Marriage” has already been taken.

    So all this is about words !

    Words can and do take on different meanings over time. Just look at the word – Gay – for example. I am not aware of any cases where changing definitions have caused the downfall of society. It all seems rather petty and silly. Especially given the fact you can use your own words to describe gay marriage. People often have their own sub dialect among their peers.

    If definitions of a word are what this is really about, you need not worry. You are free to hate fags as much as you want, regardless of what laws politicians pass. Relax.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    If words are of so little import to you, then why didn’t you get your own word?

    Why didn’t you leave well enough alone. Why did you set out to have more people have all the more reason to dislike you, fools.

    Pyrrhic victory. Enjoy your short day in the sun.

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

    SWB, I do not care about the word and care even less what homos do in their personal life.

    I have my own beliefs, which are probably pretty close to your own. The only difference is I am self possessed enough that I do not need my views consented to by politicians.

    When gay marriage becomes legal, will you be:

    1. Less gay ?

    2. More gay ?

    3. As gay as you are now ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    4. As gay as I am now, but less tolerant of all gays, not just of the ones who want to SSM each other – of all gays.

    And why less tolerant? Because you lot have had no consideration for my views on the word “marriage’ and what it has always meant.

    To me, as a class, you lot have stolen from me, and I don’t like being stolen from.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    I am neither “Party A” nor “Party B”. You have stolen from me in this context as well.

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

    Here’s the thing. Buses and trucks are tangible. Even if we redefine trucks as buses, nobody at a bus stop is going to signal a truck. They can see the difference whatever nonsense is thrust on them.

    Marriage is a concept as well a a legal entity. It is the legal entity that is changing. Whether the concept, of men and women mating and rearing any offspring — its commitment and personal sacrifice — retains its significance in society is the issue. It’s an abstract concept. Most people, including queerstfarmer, simply don’t grasp the difficulty people have dealing with ideas and things they can’t see or touch.

    Marriage as an institution to prize and cherish is already in trouble. We cannot blame homosexuals. Their brains are clearly different and they simply cannot understand what marriage is. We must blame the fools who have no insight into reality. Their need to be modern and fashionable, capitulating to a few activists, are to blame.

    Marriage will become, after a few generations, just a piece of paper.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    So whose right, SWB or DH – same sex marriage won’t last or after a few generations it will become a piece of paper (the one de facto’s with equal rights to married couples don’t have now?). A or B or neither? I’ll pick neither.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    All that will have happened by this time tomorrow is that you will have given people who already hate you – more reason to hate you – and to be reminded of it daily…

    Somehow, I don’t think the nation’s same-sex enthusiasts are going to be particularly dismayed that people who already hate them for various nonsensical reasons will make up yet another nonsensical reason for doing so. It’s the hate that’s the problem for them, not the various rationalisations that bigots come up with to try and justify the hate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    SWB, actually I have given a lot of consideration to some of the arguments advanced by those who oppose gay marriage. You lot make some very strong points and I agree with much of what you lot have to say.

    I personally believe strongly in traditional marriage and the values that implies.

    The difference is that I do not think my view should be forced on others by central government. The deciding factor, for me, is that gays getting married does not harm others or require others to change their personal definition of marriage. I am strongly opposed to gay adoption and to any notion of Churches being forced to marry gays, or anyone else who does not believe in it.

    Let the gays do their thing and you and I stick to our beliefs. It is really that simple.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    Marriage will become, after a few generations, just a piece of paper.

    I doubt it, it’s too ingrained as a social custom.

    Weddings started to go out of fashion a couple of decades or so ago when it became socially unnecessary, but from what I’ve seen they are coming back in to fashion – as a choice of commitment rather than a social expectation. I think that’s a positive change.

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

    Naturally the special relationship between men and women will last. It has its origins in the beginning of life itself and a bit of nonsense will not alter this. A bit like the give way to the right when turning left rule at intersections that came and went.

    It’s just that the word marriage will not be strongly attached to it, as the word “gay” no longer means bright and happy.

    Being called a bigot by people who are mentally incapable of copulating for pleasure would be rather amusing if it wasn’t sad.

    Apart from that, it’s untrue. Any animosity I have is recent, and directly related to being bullied into giving up the word “marriage”. Anger too directed at pathetic politicians.

    Homosexual relationships are not marriage. Civil union/partnership could have been given another name, maybe even a Maori name, as this seems so fashionable. But no, the homosexuals had to take a name with an established usage, as they did with “gay”. Why? To make their relationship respectable. To make them feel better about themselves.

    “Marriage” was taken as a comfort prop, like a favourite toy. There is no other explanation. Their relationship is not so special after all, then. They need to clutch onto something that has belonged exclusively to heterosexuals since time immemorial.

    Will we see fewer tantrums now?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    I hope you’ve stocked up on lube, haters….. Compulsory homosexuality could be here tonight!

    I <3 haters :-)

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

    @RRM. Just because think you won doesn’t mean you get to rub :) it in…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    Today will be forever remembered as a sad day in NZ’s history.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    Today will forever be remembered by haters as a sad day in New Zealand’s history of homophobia. ;-)

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

    @RRM. Who could possibly be frightened of poofs? Boof!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    It’s pretty clear from your conduct on this thread that you fear them Dennis. You think they’re going to rape all the children and destroy civilisation as we know it.

    Being a hater makes so little sense…

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

    @RRM. Because I fight for traditional marriage I hate and fear homosexuals? The only thing I hate is losing. I don’t fear homosexuals, but I would certainly fear a “good” rogering in prison.

    If I had any doubts about my sexuality I wouldn’t be writing as I do under my own name.

    Crikey you people make me laugh. Still, how could men psycho-sexually immature have much insight into how a man thinks, feels and functions?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    Once again, I find myself in strong agreement with Dennis Horne.

    I didn’t hate gays in the slightest. Up until now gays could do their thing and it was none of my business and I was more than happy to regard it this way in every aspect of my life.

    But then you interposed yourself into my life, not me into the gay life. You told me that you wanted something that was not yours to take – my language.

    I hate you for succeeding in this. But worse, far from being indifferent to you as I was for decades, I will now join the growing numbers of people who dislike you. And don’t kid yourself.

    Many people are just like me. Yesterday they ignored you. Today because of this issue alone, we despise you.

    You should have left well enough alone. When the first photograph of two gay men being essessemmed appears in the Herald, and every time afterwards, we will be reminded of how much we suddenly came to despise you, and we will be constantly despising you every time we are repeatedly reminded of your selfishness in stealing our language.

    You should have left well-enough alone.

    [btw - essessemmed = SSM'd = fake marriage

    Feel free to promote the word 'essessemmed' It could be a winner. It is my gift to the English language.]

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

    Bunions me old sausage, appreciate your support – it’s lonely at the bottom. Yucky, too.

    Just had lunch with a bloke who owns his own executive jet and helicopter, you know, the sort of bloke who would not flinch if confronted by a flock of poofs.

    His comment: I feel cheated, don’t you?”

    I don’t think the sounds of “hymn and hymn” will resonate in the ballot box…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Clearly SWB is not a Maori with a broader focus on the theft of sticks and stones and land, but a white racist, more concerned about English words.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Dennis, gay is related to “Good As You” and you should look at the wider history of the word. Same as the word queer, “up queery street” referred to someone facing debtors prison. Anyone facing a bad debt enquiry could end up in debtors prison (prisons are segregated).

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

    http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/gay?q=gay
    Definition of gay
    adjective (gayer, gayest)
    1(of a person, especially a man) homosexual.
    relating to or used by homosexuals:
    a gay bar
    2 dated light-hearted and carefree:
    Nan had a gay disposition and a very pretty face
    3 dated brightly coloured; showy:
    a gay profusion of purple and pink sweet peas
    4 informal, often offensive foolish, stupid, or unimpressive:
    he thinks the obsession with celebrity is totally gay

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay
    Gay is a term that primarily refers to a homosexual person or the trait of being homosexual.
    The term was originally used to refer to feelings of being “carefree”, “happy”, or “bright and showy”. The term’s use as a reference to homosexuality may date as early as the late 19th century, but its use gradually increased in the 20th century.[1] In modern English, “gay” has come to be used as an adjective, and as a noun, referring to the people, especially to males, and the practices and cultures associated with homosexuality.
    By the end of the 20th century, the word “gay” was recommended by major LGBT groups and style guides to describe people attracted to members of the same sex.[2][3]

    At about the same time, a new, pejorative use became prevalent in some parts of the world. In the Anglosphere, this connotation, among younger speakers, has a derisive meaning equivalent to rubbish or stupid (as in “That’s so gay.”).

    In this use, the word does not mean “homosexual”, so it can be used, for example, to refer to an inanimate object or abstract concept of which one disapproves. This usage can also refer to weakness or unmanliness. When used in this way, the extent to which it still retains connotations of homosexuality has been debated and harshly criticized.[4][5]

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