Some anti same sex marriage correspondence

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

Some of the e-mails and letters being sent to MPs and media are almost beyond belief. I don’t know how they think they will persuade people with such arguments. Here’s a collection of some of the worse.

AREYOUKIDDINGME

I especially like the proposition that heterosexual marriage involves “painless” coitus and homosexual marriage involves painful anal sex and cunnilingus! In my experience around 99% of heterosexual women like cunnilingus and it doesn’t tend to be too painful. Also more anal sex is very common with heterosexual couples also.

photo

This one is classy. If you vote “pro gay” your grandson may end up kissing a man in front of you or even worse having sex in your home with a man. Not because he is gay, but because he thinks you will approve of it!

And some quotes from assorted letters:

“Love in itself is not illegal, although the way it is expressed may be (rape, adultery, incest, euthanasia, abortion, murder).”

I didn’t know rape and murder were products of love!

“Trying to normalise and legalise a sexual perversion such as homosexuality can also cause a lot of harm in creating criminals out of normally law-abiding citizens or unfairly restricts their activities.”

Huh?

“If a man does this to women he can be charged with sodomy. So how is it that there are people in the government who want to make this act between two people equal with marriage as it now stands? How can sodomy be illegal in one case and legal in another?”

Someone is not up to date with the law!

“THEN AGAIN…. What would happen if the Bill is passed into Law? What would happen if it was compulsory????

Oh yes, compulsion is the next step!

“It is my belief that homosexual and lesbian feelings are a usually a result of some neglect, dysfunction or abuse. Homosexual men commonly have had emotional distance or lack of love from their fathers; lesbians often have had a poor relationship with their mother. Also, sexual abuse is another factor. 

Hear that lesbians – it is all the fault of your parents!

Tags:

174 Responses to “Some anti same sex marriage correspondence”

  1. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    “Love in itself is not illegal, although the way it is expressed may be (rape, adultery, incest, euthanasia, abortion, murder).”

    Whoever wrote that should be in police supervision. What a stuffed up way of looking at the concept of ‘love’. I hope whoever they are can’t reproduce.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    ” Also more anal sex is very common with heterosexual couples also.”

    Really ?..Really ?? . A quick survey of my group of friends doesn’t support that notion. Maybe we are all prudes.

    [DPF: I don't tend to ask my female friends if they like being sodomised, but numerous surveys have found between around a quarter and a third of heterosexual couples have had anal sex]

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Andrew M (50 comments) says:

    I think the bigger issue with these kind of submitters are their apparent mental health issues, their arguments against the bill are not typical.

    And I support the bill myself. I just think you’re deliberately winding up your readership… which is your choice obviously.

    [DPF: Their arguments are not typical, but they are far from unique. You'd be surprised at how many letters of this type are flooding in]

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Chuck Bird (4,888 comments) says:

    I don’t know how they think they will persuade people with such arguments.

    What makes you think these people thought that they would persuade enough MPs to make a difference and were just expressing their anger and frustration at another of John Key’s broken promises.

    [DPF: What broken promise?]

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Ed Snack (1,873 comments) says:

    Actually, given the tactics being employed, I would not be at all surprised to find that virtually all of these items have been manufactured by the pro same sex marriage proponents and sent in an attempt to discredit the opposition.

    Not that there aren’t plenty of nutters around though…

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    Normalise your cause and denormalise the opposition.

    The “gay” campaign continues relentlessly.

    What would Mrs T have said?

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Andrei (2,657 comments) says:

    LOL – liberal illogic at its finest on display.

    A few opponents of same sex marriage expressed themselves in a way that lends itself to liberal mockery ergo same sex “marriage” makes sense.

    I’ve got news for you, it doesn’t make any sense, same sex marriage is bonkers and the only reason we are having it imposed upon us is to pander to a few well heeled, over indulged, middle class, sexually confused twerps

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    “another of John Key’s broken promises.”

    What promise did John Key break on this?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Some of those writing styles are very familiar to anyone who spends a bit of time on this site. Pure gold.

    This would honestly be the only time ever in the history of my life that I have seen Aboriginals brought up in any argument other than ‘petrol sniffing ‘ is bad for ya. Where the fuck did that come from?. Thats right ,all those Aboriginal churches that are scattered throughout the outback.

    Out of the mouths of babes and congenital idiots

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. GJKiwi (175 comments) says:

    liarbors: perhaps just out of touch. I don’t mean that in a negative way. From what I know, anal sex is at least tried by a large percentage of people at least once, and some people obviously enjoy it. (From scientific studies and from knowledge of friend’s and acquaintances and previous sex partners sexual habits.) And who says that all male gays indulge in anal sex in any case? Should we conduct a poll? And if they do, that is their business, not ours. The point is, the current law discriminates against people who choose to live with someone they love who just doesn’t happen to of the opposite sex. People who aren’t married have different rights under law than those who are married.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Manolo (13,780 comments) says:

    GayKiwiBlog will break all records on this important, vital, crucial and fundamental issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. BlairM (2,339 comments) says:

    How awkward and unpleasant. Rather like being hit on by another man. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. eszett (2,409 comments) says:

    kowtow (4,083) Says:
    April 12th, 2013 at 9:24 am
    Normalise your cause and denormalise the opposition.

    Isn’t that exactly what these pamphlets and emails are trying to do, kowtow?
    Even more, demonising homosexuals?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    The end is nigh.

    Better start stocking up on anal lube, fundies… compulsory sodomy is coming, and you know it :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. eszett (2,409 comments) says:

    Andrei (2,015) Says:
    April 12th, 2013 at 9:26 am
    LOL – liberal illogic at its finest on display.

    A few opponents of same sex marriage expressed themselves in a way that lends itself to liberal mockery ergo same sex “marriage” makes sense.

    I don’t think David’s main criticism is style, Andrei, but content.

    But I wonder, which one of the statements shown would you disagree with then?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    Really ?..Really ?? . A quick survey of my group of friends doesn’t support that notion. Maybe we are all prudes.

    Yes you are all prudes.

    RRM’s research suggests about 50% of women under 35 like a bit of anal every now and then, and about 75% of them like giving and receiving head.

    Live dangerously every once in a while LAJ, who knows you may enjoy it :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. La Grand Fromage (145 comments) says:

    OK, we get it already. People who don’t think Homo’s getting married is the best thing ever are backward, embarrassing, simpletons.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. lastmanstanding (1,297 comments) says:

    Bend over and take it like a MAN

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    DPF’s obsession on this topic defies belief. Better pinch myself. [Pinches self]. No, it’s real. I guess we’re stuck with it (with apoligies to Basil Fawlty)

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Chuck Bird (4,888 comments) says:

    [DPF: What broken promise?]

    At the 2008 election JK promised that there would be no asset sales and stated that there would not be more of the social engineering that occurred under Clark.

    Prior to the 2011 election he made it clear that there would be limited partial asset sales. However, he gave little or no indication that he changed National’s policy on social engineering legislation. If he did it was very low key and not in National’s manifesto.

    Technically this is a private member’s bill but if it was not for Key it would not have passed a first reading.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. sheriff (1 comment) says:

    How do you injure yourself with cunnilingus? RSI?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    Cant think of anything more disgusting RRM…why would a man want to put his shlong into a womans ( or worse, a mans ) arse? Live dangerously you say ? Really ? By sodomising somebody ? Why would I want to put my health on the line just for a kick?

    [DPF: Generally, because the women asks him to!]

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Hear that lesbians – it is all the fault of your parents!

    Go on, show us it aint so by marrying your mother.

    Oh, that’s right, you can’t.

    Waaaaaaa diiiiiscrminaaaaation!

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Mark (1,488 comments) says:

    I did chuckle at one comment a while ago supporting gay marriage On the basis that gays should also be forced to endure mother in laws. So true. I do have concerns however that gay marriage will lead to automatic legalisation of gay adoption without having a proper debate on what is an entirely different issue.

    Gay marriage is about the rights of gays whereas adoption is about the rights of Children and therefore a different debate altogether.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. eszett (2,409 comments) says:

    Technically this is a private member’s bill but if it was not for Key it would not have passed a first reading.

    So? Where is this a “broken promise”? Did he ever say he will not support private members bills?
    Besides it’s a free vote, so John Key can’t really tell which way members should vote anyway.

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

    RRM’s research suggests about 50% of women under 35 like a bit of anal every now and then, and about 75% of them like giving and receiving head.

    That figure of 50% gets closer to 100%, if you do it right ;)

    In the interests of equality the Compulsory Sodomy Act will have to apply to hetorosexual women also, so you Christians had better start breaking the news to your nearest and dearest.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. SGA (1,042 comments) says:

    @DPF
    In my experience around 99% of heterosexual women like cunnilingus and it doesn’t tend to be too painful

    Didn’t you realise those were moans of extreme agony?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Andrei (2,657 comments) says:

    Putin in Amsterdam when questioned on the West’s obsession with homosexuality

    “I consider it necessary to defend the rights of sexual minorities, but… children are not born in same-sex marriages. Both Europe and Russia face problems of a demographic nature,” the Russian president said, adding that though demographic problems might be solved by encouraging migration, he would like Russia’s population to grow primarily as a result of a demographic boom “in the so-called titular ethnic groups: Russians, Tatars, Chechens, Bashkirs, Dagestanis and so on.”

    Speaking about gay marriages, Putin mentioned the mentality of the Russian people and said that such issues should be dealt with in accordance with the tendencies prevailing in the public mood.

    “Can you imagine an organization promoting pedophilia in Russia? I think people in many Russian regions would have started to take up arms. The same is true for sexual minorities: I can hardly imagine same-sex marriages being allowed in Chechnya. Can you imagine it? It would have resulted in human casualties,” he said.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Longknives (4,753 comments) says:

    Christ this is a non-event- 99% of Gay people have no inclination whatsoever to get married (that would interfere with their sordid and rampant glory-hole lifestyle)
    This whole thing is just a windup to get a few old God Botherers all worked up.
    I have no opposition to Gay Marriage but this is becoming more and more of an attack on the church for the hell of it. And the adoring media just laps it up…

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. eszett (2,409 comments) says:

    why would a man want to put his shlong into a womans ( or worse, a mans ) arse?

    The same reason a man would want to put his shlong into a womans ( or worse, a mans ) mouth.
    Because it is sexually pleasing to both.

    Just because you don’t like it or can’t imagine it, doesn’t make it bad or immoral. Just don’t it if you don’t want to.

    The same way you shudder at the thought of anal sex, the same way other people shudder at the thought of your “normal” sex life.

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

    Andrei, I agree with Putin. Why don’t you go live there ?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    Er, if cunnilingus from that first nutter causes pain and injuries, maybe he should stop using his teeth and think about the origin of the ‘lingus’ part of cunnilingus.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. greenjacket (466 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird wrote: he gave little or no indication that he changed National’s policy on social engineering legislation.
    Technically this is a private member’s bill but if it was not for Key it would not have passed a first reading.”

    No “technically” about Chucky – it is a private members bill in a parliament with a conscience vote and has nothing to do with the National Party. I am struggling to understand your belief that John Key somehow has some kind of veto over a private members bill.
    Social engineering? I don’t believe that if this bill is passed that anyone is going to force you (or anyone else) to marry a dude – if you are heterosexual, then this bill has absolutely zero effect on you.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    Well homosexuality may not be compulsory,but if you don’t like gay marriage then be prepared to go out of business-

    State sues florist who refused to decorate gay wedding
    11 Apr 2013 Todd Starnes | Fox News Radio
    The State of Washington is suing a small flower shop after the owner declined to provide flowers for a homosexual wedding – based on her religious beliefs.

    Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Wash., is facing thousands of dollars in fines and penalties for allegedly violating the state’s Consumer Protection Act.

    “If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same-sex couples the same product or service,” Attorney General Bob Ferguson said in a statement.

    http://www.mychristiandaily.com/index.php/uk/162-world/usa-canada/news-item-1-usa-canada/5602-state-sues-florist-who-refused-to-decorate-gay-wedding

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. muggins (3,787 comments) says:

    liarbors a joke (455) Says:

    April 12th, 2013 at 9:09 am
    ” Also more anal sex is very common with heterosexual couples also.”

    Really ?..Really ?? . A quick survey of my group of friends doesn’t support that notion. Maybe we are all prudes.

    [DPF: I don't tend to ask my female friends if they like being sodomised, but numerous surveys have found between around a quarter and a third of heterosexual couples have had anal sex]

    I go with you liabors. If those surveys do show that I wouldn’t mind betting for most of those couples it was a one off. I reckon most women would find it pretty painful unless the man has a pencil thin dick. I can’t see women getting any pleasure whatsoever out of anal sex.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    Why would I want to put my health on the line just for a kick?

    You put your health on the line every time you have sex; in fact, every time you even kiss someone; in fact, every time you touch a door handle. “Don’t touch me ’cause I’m close to the, edge… I’m tryin’, not to touch that door handle”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    I can’t see women getting any pleasure whatsoever out of anal sex.

    There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
    Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    I can hardly imagine same-sex marriages being allowed in Chechnya. Can you imagine it? It would have resulted in human casualties,” he said.

    Yeah, one thing that really keeps a Russian dictator awake at night worrying is the thought that something other than his instructions might cause human casualties in Chechnya.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Hom hom homogenous homarriage.

    There is a muck hole and there is a fuck hole, for perfectly good reasons that are obvious to normal people.

    Homosexuals are not normal sexually any more than colour blind men have normal sight.

    People can have wish lists and imagine a perfect world or whatever but Reality exists independent of Man, even if it is only holographic.

    As for women liking sodomy, 90% of statistics are made up.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    Sure PsychoM..life is lived on a knife edge ..using your analogy I mite as well go and lick out a rubbish bin…or let someone crap in my mouth..somethings you just dont do.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Lucia Maria (2,428 comments) says:

    Adding to what Scott posted at 10:03am

    BALTIMORE, April 11, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Famed pediatric neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson announced Wednesday that he will not speak at graduation ceremonies for students at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and School of Education.

    Dr. Carson, who rose from poverty to become one of the leading neurosurgeons in the world, was slated to give the commencement speech at Johns Hopkins, where he has practiced since 1977. But homosexual activists, angry about comments Carson made in favor of traditional marriage, mounted a campaign to force the university to disinvite him.

    Carson, 61, discussed his views on same-sex “marriage” last week last month on Fox News, expressing his concern that a redefinition of marriage to include homosexual couples could be a slippery slope.

    “Marriage is between a man and a woman,” Carson told Fox News host Sean Hannity. “It’s a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group — be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn’t matter what they are — they don’t get to change the definition.”

    He clarified his statement was not aimed “against gays; it’s against anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society. It has significant ramifications.”

    Last week, medical school dean Paul Rothman released a statement calling Carson’s remarks “hurtful, offensive,” and “inconsistent with the culture of our institution.”

    He agreed to meet with student supporters of same-sex “marriage,” who said Carson’s views made him an unacceptable graduation speaker

    So, even a leading neurosurgeon, if he doesn’t have the “right” opinions on same-sex marriage, will ostracised in this brave new world where black becomes white, dogs become cats and idiots think that women like anal sex.

    LINK

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (842) Says:
    April 12th, 2013 at 10:20 am

    …As for women liking sodomy, 90% of statistics are made up.

    ————————————-
    You have spoken to an adequate representation of women yourself about anal sex, to come up with your opinion, or are you just an ‘old woman’ – and sharing a personal experience?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Robo (24 comments) says:

    Your post focuses on the stupidity of the anti side. However, this is a debate characterised by deceit and outrage on both sides. As just one example, the pro lobby (supported by the HRC) loudly insisted no marriage celebrants would be penalised for objecting, and that those who claimed otherwise were bigots or fools. However, the law is really clear – objecting celebrants would be acting unlawfully. Finally the select committee conceded there was a problem and changed the Bill to ameliorate the position of officially sanctioned objectors (but not those who object on the basis of individual conscience).
    I’m not excusing the extreme and stupid material from the anti side, but even moderate people can get shrill if they think they are not getting a fair hearing.
    Your post would have been more convincing if you balanced your account by including extreme material from the pro side.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Batman (103 comments) says:

    someone above suggested that these may have been fabricated by supporters of the bill. I can report that this is not the case. MPs have been receiving dozens (not hundreds, just dozens) of genuine letters such as these, some of which have been much more graphic and, frankly, bizarre. I’m on the fence over this bill, but those opponents who have been motivated to contact MPs are not doing themselves any favours with their 1950s or even Victorian style arguments!

    It would seem to me that your average opponent to this bill is older, socially conservative (obviously), and devoutly religious.

    Those against it also seem to have a shared view that homosexuals are predicated to abuse children and have a lack of control over these apparent ‘urges’, which I have to say is rather surprising news given the nature of all of the gay people I have met in my life!!

    There also seems to be an obsession with “sodomy”, and an apparent assumption that those who engage in it have apparently not heard of the condom or the concept of safe sex, as it is apparently going to kill us all via AIDS when gay marriage is legalised and we all start running about having unprotected anal sex!

    Back on the subject of children, apparently they will be unable to distinguish between gay parents and straight parents, and thus will become horribly confused about who there mum is and who their dad is. They will also grow up and become delinquents, abuse alcohol (civil unions have been blamed for binge drinking), take drugs, and engage in risky sexual practices such as anal sex, bestiality, paedophilia, and be more at risk of raping others. Quite how this will all work is unexplained, so I will reserve judgement!

    If you are against the bill, just write in and say that you are in favour of retaining marriage as it currently stands. The arguments presented to MPs have been rubbish so far, and would not sway any of them. and vice versa, if you support it then simply say that you support this bill.

    Personally, i’m inclined to support it on the grounds that Churches have the ability to choose who they want to marry in their churches, and celebrants etc are not obligated to marry gay couples (which they already are, they can decline a couple for any reason they like).

    But seriously, some of the arguments around this issue would be down right hilarious if they weren’t obviously the honest opinions of some people living among us.

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

    dam there are some morons out there.

    i have empathy for some of the religious people who want to protect traditional marriage etc.

    but some of the anti-gay stuff is just OTT. it deserves ridicule.

    unfortunately it does take away from genuine debate as the anti-gay marriage people can all be dismissed as loons by the media.

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

    No marriage celebrants will be penalised for objecting if they belong to organisations whose religious doctrines are antigay. However, Robo, you’re talking about service provision discrimination and weakening the Human Rights Act really. Parliament has voted on this through rejecting Tim Macindoe’s rephrensible SOP on the matter and roundly rejected that option.

    Insofar as extreme material from the pro side goes, the problem is that supporters of marriage equality back up what we say through appeals to earlier overseas legislative instances of marriage equality overseas and evidence-based research and policy statements from mainstream pediatrics and developmental psychology organisations in the context of adoption reform. All we seem to get from the rel sock cons are regurgitations of the discredited Regnerus hackwork and appeals to particular sectarian ‘natural law’ positions that are not binding on those of us who do not share conservative Catholic philosophical beliefs in the propriety of Saints Augustine and Aquinas, nor should they be. And yes, I have read both.

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

    Just a thought DPF. Did the authors of the correspondence indicate they were happy to have extracts published without context? There are some crazy statements in there to be sure, but is it normal/acceptable to demonise by omission?

    [DPF: Copyright allows fair use and quoting, and as I have not named them they are not being demonised. If they wish to put their hands up as the authors - good on them]

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Insofar as extreme material from the pro side goes, the problem is that supporters of marriage equality back up what we say through appeals to earlier overseas legislative instances of marriage equality overseas and evidence-based research and policy statements from mainstream pediatrics and developmental psychology organisations in the context of adoption reform

    That… oh yes, and repeatedly calling me a hateful bigot because I want the definition of marriage to remain unchanged.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    the problem is that supporters of marriage equality back up what we say through appeals to earlier overseas legislative instances of marriage equality overseas and evidence-based research and policy statements from mainstream pediatrics and developmental psychology organisations in the context of adoption reform.

    Keep telling yourself that.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Judith. Do you never understand anything you read, Judith? You’ve collected enough straw men to scare the crows. I said, somewhat facetiously, 90% statistics are made up. I don’t know how many women enjoy sodomy, and neither do you. Nobody does. What people say and what they do are two different things.

    I can say, that even in my moments of most desperate deprivation and frustration, I have never wanted to stick it up anyone’s arse, or to rub my cock in shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    It would seem to me that your average opponent to this bill is older, socially conservative (obviously), and devoutly religious.

    I think you mean “submitter”. Polls show that SSM is losing public support.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    But all this missing the point.

    The supporters of this bill claim it’s justified because they love someone. That is hardly more coherent a reason to fundamentally redefine marriage than any of the above – and we are generally agreed that the above are outliers.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    I don’t have to ‘tell myself that’, Scrubone, I know it. Why else do you think we have allies on the centre-left and mainstream centre-right alike? Why is it that opponents of marriage equality want to erode our antidiscrimination laws, and damage such basic democratic principles as meaningful religious freedom and faith/state seperation?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Why is it that opponents of marriage equality want to erode our antidiscrimination laws, and damage such basic democratic principles as meaningful religious freedom and faith/state seperation?

    Are you even following this debate!?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird at 9:48 a.m. – I couldn’t agree with you more. John Key is the Prime Minister of this country. He is the one who indicated that the social engineering was over and national would concentrate on getting the economy right and getting people back to work.

    However once Obama decided that gay marriage was okay John Key was asked about it by the New Zealand media and indicated that he thought gay marriage was okay. This encouraged Louisa Wall to submit her private member’s bill.
    Chuck is absolutely right. Without the Prime Minister support this bill would not have survived the first reading. He is leading the party, many of his caucus are following his lead and voting for it. This bill is going through on his watch, he has the power to vote against it and encourage his party to vote against it. So to me it is an example of yet another so-called Conservative caving in to the media elite and the progressive political cause. Because of this I and many others will not vote National again.

    Finally I want to say that I am not a John Key hater. I thought he has done a reasonable job on the economy. When the Christchurch earthquake hit he was magnificent and led the country admirably. So my objection to him is based solely on the fact that he is aiding and abetting the social engineering of the rainbow wing of the Labour Party in the form of his support for gay marriage and gay adoption and presumably euthanasia.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Robo (24 comments) says:

    ChardonnayGuy
    I agree with you as the Bill has now been amended. And that it is debatable whether celebrants should be able to object on the grounds of individual conscience (personally I think existing celebrants should, as the rules have been changed on them, but new celebrants shouldn’t as they sign up to the rules whatever they are). But my point is that, contrary to the reassurances and bluster of the pro lobby, it was and remains unlawful for them to do so.
    I haven’t seen much objective material from the pro side – it seems to me it largely assumes its conclusions. But I agree some of the anti stuff is truly foul, and that religious positions just cannot prevail in our secular society. What I object to is the yelling down/demonisation of opposition.
    Batman
    The existing section of the Marriage Act that permits a celebrant to refuse to marry any person would not protect a celebrant who openly said “I do not want to marry you because you are gay”, or “I do not perform gay marriages””. That would be a clear breach of the HRA. Instead the dwindling number of celebrants who do not want to perform gay marriages will just have to lie about their motives. Not an intolerable outcome, but just not what the public were told.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Fletch (6,392 comments) says:

    I don’t tend to ask my female friends if they like being sodomised, but numerous surveys have found between around a quarter and a third of heterosexual couples have had anal sex

    Maybe for a kick, like someone said, but sodomy is the only way two men can have “sex”.
    In Canada, where same sex ‘marriage’ has been legal since 2005, marriage hasn’t solved all the gay problems. As one writer for a gay newspaper Xtra, writes in the Tuesday, February 17, 2009 issue –

    Over the past 10 years [Government] have contracted with experts on gay, lesbian, bisexual health to produce studies … issues affecting queer Canadians includes lower life expectancy than the average Canadian, suicide, higher rates of substance abuse, depression, inadequate access to care and HIV/AIDS… all kinds of health issues that are endemic to our community… higher rates of anal cancer in the gay male community, lesbians have higher rates of breast cancer … more GLBT people in this country who die of suicide each year than die from AIDS, there are more who die early deaths from substance abuse than die of HIV/AIDS… now that we can get married everyone assumes that we don’t have any issues … A lot of the deaths that occur in our community are hidden … Those of us who are working on the front lines see them and I’m tired of watching my community die.”

    So, gay men have higher rates of anal cancer – I wonder why that is?

    Here is a snippet from the Human Rights complaint that gays sent to the Canadian Govt, complaining that they are being discriminated against, because there are not enough health programmes and studies dedicated to the “unique” health problems of GLBT Canadians.

    Gay men,lesbians and bisexual men and women are
    at higher risk for some cancers as a result of their
    sexual orientation and because preventative messaging is not targeted at GLB communities. Because of
    higher rates of smoking and alcoholuse, GLB populations are at a higher risk for lung and liver cancer.

    Sexually-active gay and bisexual men have a higher
    prevalence of anal cancer precursors due to frequent
    exposure to the human papillomavirus, a virus believed also to be a contributor to high rates of head,
    throat and neck cancers among this same population.
    Lesbians are reported to be at a higher risk for
    breast cancer based on particular risk factors more
    prevalent in this population.

    This is from their own complaint.
    The whole thing makes for dismal reading.

    Life expectancy of gay/bisexual men in Canada is 20 years less than the average; that is 55 years.
    GLB people commit suicide at rates from 2 to 13.9 times more often than average.
    GLB people have smoking rates 1.3 to 3 times higher than average.
    GLB people have rates of alcoholism 1.4 to 7 times higher than average.
    GLB people have rates of illicit drug use 1.6 to 19 times higher than average.
    GLB people show rates of depression 1.8 to 3 times higher than average.
    Gay and bisexual men (MSM) comprise 76.1% of AIDS cases.
    Gay and bisexual men (MSM) comprise 54% of new HIV infections each year.
    If one uses Statistics Canada figure of 1.7% of GLB becoming infected, that is 26 times higher than average.
    GLB people are at a higher risk for anal cancers.

    But it’s the State’s fault of course, for not providing enough programmes and information to gays about these things and how they can protect themselves.

    And yet, these are the kind of lifestyles and marriages that are considered normal and natural? That will be promoted in schools as being normal?

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

    krazykiwi – id love to see the context that paints that garbage in a good light

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

    …sodomy is the only way two men can have “sex”.

    Could one of Fletch’s friends reading this please buy him a book on how to do sex properly?

    …I have never wanted to stick it up anyone’s arse, or to rub my cock in shit.

    Well, yes, that second one would be a very unusual fetish. It’s not related to the first one though – or if it is in your experience, you need to try and meet women with a higher standard of personal hygiene.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. gump (1,649 comments) says:

    @Fletch

    “Maybe for a kick, like someone said, but sodomy is the only way two men can have “sex”.”

    ———————

    It isn’t the “only way”.

    But please don’t let facts get in the way of your argument.

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

    Just because people who are not very intelligent or well educated can’t express their fears and feelings in an intelligent and reasonable way in no way diminishes their right to object to something they believe or sense is wrong.

    It is wrong to take the word “marriage” and apply it to something else.

    For fuck’s sake, it’s bloody obvious. Buggery is not copulation and copulation and raising any offspring is what differentiates marriage from all other relationships.

    It’s made worse by the fact this is not about marriage, few homosexuals will get married. It’s about society forcing people to accept homosexual acts as the equivalence of mating.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    sheriif @950

    Cunnilingus?

    That’s what they called the Irish state owned airline after it took a licking from Ryan Air :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    @KevinHague Oh that would be the cunninlingus references :-) One writer thought only lesbians do it!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    krazykiwi asks “is it normal/acceptable to demonise by omission?”

    It’s quite normal to quote parts. I’ve been demonised by bible thumpers and they omit quoting the whole caboodle.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Fletch (6,392 comments) says:

    As has been said before regarding those who talk about “marriage equality”, natural marriage and gay “marriage” can never be “equal” because they are not the same. Equality is not the same as equivalence.

    To be equal, both sides of the equals sign have to be exactly the same eg, 1+2 = 3
    In this case though, natural marriage is not exactly the same as gay marriage.

    Natural marriage involves the natural complementarity of man and woman – they fit together and form a unit and their sexual organs (that alone are somehow incomplete) together form a biological ‘oneness’ that function as a whole together like two parts of an engine. Natural marriage and same sex marriage are different relationships and have different outcomes. They are not the same and treating them the same can only harm society – a society that is built on the family unit.

    All same sex marriage does is affirm a partnership or coupling. The government traditionally has no interest in who loves each other or who gets together. The only reason the Government is interested in and regulates marriage is because it creates children and families. They did not create marriage and have no right to redefine it.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. gump (1,649 comments) says:

    @Dennis Horne

    “For fuck’s sake, it’s bloody obvious. Buggery is not copulation and copulation and raising any offspring is what differentiates marriage from all other relationships.”

    ———————–

    What differentiates marriage from other relationships is its legal definition in the NZ statutes.

    So we are simply changing the legal definition.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    Just because people who are not very intelligent or well educated can’t express their fears and feelings in an intelligent and reasonable way in no way diminishes their right to object to something they believe or sense is wrong.

    For fuck’s sake, it’s bloody obvious. Buggery is not copulation and copulation and raising any offspring is what differentiates marriage from all other relationships.

    This made me LOL ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. gump (1,649 comments) says:

    @Fletch

    “As has been said before regarding those who talk about “marriage equality”, natural marriage and gay “marriage” can never be “equal” because they are not the same. Equality is not the same as equivalence.”

    ———————-

    Again, you have missed the entire point of the proposed changes to the legislation.

    “Marriage equality” refers specifically to equality under the eyes of the law.

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

    @Psycho. You don’t know much anatomy or physiology, then. What do you do first? Enema?

    Your suggestion of my meeting women with a higher standard of personal hygiene is very offensive to a man who has been married for >40 to a woman whose hygiene is immaculate, even when living in Montmartre in a flat that had no bathroom.

    I don’t care what homosexuals do, they can stick it in a mincer for all I care, it’s calling it marriage I object to. Because it’s not.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    Fletch, there is no such thing as “natural marriage”. If it was natural you’d expect other species to naturally be doing something similar, but most species can’t even make confetti.

    You’re talking as if marriage was one simply defined permanent thing. It’s not, it covers a wide variety of social and legal unions in an ever-evolving world.

    By the sounds of things your marriage is quite different to mine, that doesn’t make either an illegitimate union. And my marriage isn’t natural, it’s a deliberate social statement and arrangement.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Fletch (6,392 comments) says:

    It isn’t the “only way”.

    Gump I’m talking about sexual intercourse, or coitus.
    Gay people cannot have sex at all. They can stimulate each other through various means or use the orifices meant for partaking of food or expelling of bodily waste, but this isn’t sexual intercourse.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    gump (573) Says: April 12th, 2013 at 11:26 am
    What differentiates marriage from other relationships is its legal definition in the NZ statutes.

    Nonsense. The concept of marriage exists entirely independently of New Zealand and NZ Law. NZ cannot change marriage any more that it can change gravity.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    “it’s calling it marriage I object to. Because it’s not.”

    How about if we call it garriage? Hedlock?

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

    Homarriage?

    HoHumarriage?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Fletch (6,392 comments) says:

    What differentiates marriage from other relationships is its legal definition in the NZ statutes.

    So we are simply changing the legal definition.

    No. Marriage has always been one thing, even before the State came into it with legal definitions.
    And changing a label won’t change what something innately IS.

    When a director on a movie set looks at the false front of a building, he can decide what kind of building he wants it to be and make it so by hanging a different sign on it. However, if one thinks he can look at a real building and claim he can decide for himself what kind of building it is without reference to its design, he is either a liar, a madman, or a liberal who has been seduced by magical thinking.

    Even if gay “marriage” gets passed into law, do not think that will be the end of it. It will become like the abortion debate. And cases will come up about discrimination and hate speech because there will be those who know what marriage really is and refuse to cowtow to the State definition.

    No, the debate isn’t going away, so don’t think that it will.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    The problem with “traditional marriage” (from Changing Notions of Traditional Marriage):

    But here’s the problem: The notion of traditional marriage that these conservatives are so vigorously defending is not historically accurate. Pundit Bill Kristol recently fell into this trap when he complained that supporters of marriage equality want to overthrow “thousands of years of history and what the great religions teach” about marriage.

    In actuality, traditional marriage — as it existed centuries ago — is not worth defending.

    Let’s start with concubines, also known as mistresses, who were owned by husbands in ancient cultures and are mentioned without disapproval throughout the Hebrew Bible. Then there’s the practice of polygamy, which was the norm in biblical times. Back then, tradition forced rape victims to marry their rapist. Tradition also called for victorious soldiers to make female war prisoners their wives and concubines.

    In the Middle Ages, marriages were arranged for political and financial reasons, and girls could be forced to marry when they were as young as 12 years old. British Common Law held a man to be “lord and master” of his wife who was subject to “domestic chastisement.” Wife beating was legal and common in England until the late 1800s.

    In colonial America, wife beating was illegal, but marriage equaled patriarchy. A wife had no legal rights or existence apart from her husband. Any money or property she inherited belonged to him. Their children were his as well. Wife abuse was not uncommon.

    n 1864 a North Carolina court heard the case of a woman abused by her husband because she had called him names. The court ruled that:

    “A husband is responsible for the acts of his wife, and he is required to govern his household, and for that purpose the law permits him to use towards his wife such a degree of force as is necessary to control an unruly temper and make her behave herself; and unless some permanent injury be inflicted, or there be an excess of violence, or such a degree of cruelty as shows that it is inflicted to gratify his own bad passions, the law will not invade the domestic forum, or go behind the curtain.”

    And now?

    It wasn’t until the 20th century, when women fought for and won the right to vote, to sign contracts on their own, to obtain financial credit, to have access to contraception and more, that these earlier notions of traditional marriage began to crumble, and something resembling the institution we recognize today began to emerge.

    But each of the advances for women’s equality was fought by forces that considered them an invasion of the sacred private realm of the home and an assault on the family. Even so, these advances became part of law and culture and are now the norm. In fact, they are embedded in the institution that conservatives are now so fiercely defending.

    Marriage has always been dynamic. For the most part, its evolution has been positive. Marriage today is far more mutually supportive, egalitarian and secure for children than it was centuries ago. Take heart, conservatives. The institution of marriage does change and adapt over the years, and that is what makes it endure.

    We can’t be sure what the effects of gay marriage will have but if the history of marriage evolution is anything to go by most people will accept as normal what not long ago seemed controversial.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    As no one considered these submissions could simply be a ruse? is it inconceivable that fake submissions are not part of the overall plan to steal a long standing tradition and add it to the magpies nest?

    The photocopied one looks particularly suspicious.

    Either way, just about any issue that goes to select committee would have it’s share of nutter submissions, yet here is Farrar trying to imply that these oddballs represent the veracity of the whole opposition argument.

    I think he is being played like a harp.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Robo (24 comments) says:

    Agree with Denis Horne at 11.21
    Many of the supporters of gay marriage appear to despise marriage as an institution.
    A 1960’s feminist friend thinks the whole debate is strange. Since when did an expession of patriachical oppression become a basic human right, the absence of which deprives anyone (including gays) of their full human potential? Really, how could that be when many progressives have been deriding marriage for decades?
    She thinks gay marriage advocates are likely to be dissappointed when marriage doesn’t deliver on its unrealistic promises.
    Contemporary legal marriage has no legal, social or moral consequences. It cannot transform lives or form the foundation of human dignity, or even support social cohesion. It is a social occasion, and an opportunity for conspicious consumption.
    Personally, I would like there to be a serious marriage option, where the committment meant what it said.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    It’s made worse by the fact this is not about marriage, few homosexuals will get married. It’s about society forcing people to accept homosexual acts as the equivalence of mating.

    Bingo Dennis. You’re one of the very very few who get it. By redefining marriage they redefine heterosexuality.

    The blind fools who munt on about how it doesn’t affect their marriage or how it’s about human wights just don’t understand social engineering because they look at the wrong timeframes.

    People forget when contraception was first raised in the 20’s it was seen as a moral issue and the Anglican Church capitulated which isolated the Catholics who were the only ones to stand strong on that. But the aim was twofold. Firstly to generate a culture of no-consequence sex, secondly to make much smaller families into the norm.

    And lo and behold precisely as planned after 2-3 generations in the 1970’s now that it had become widely acceptable not to have kids (recall the 1980’s DINKS demographic label) or to have very few, the no-fault divorce on demand issue was put on the table. Now, the marriage vow of “till death do us part” was the target. No longer was marriage to be for life, the aim there was to sever the link between permanence and marriage so it became normal to have multiple marriages on one’s lifetime.

    And they waited for several more decades until that change had bedded itself in, before launching this, the final frontier. But sadly, the battle had already been lost. For by surrendering on the contraception and the divorce issue, society now looked very different. Now, it was normal for heterosexual couples, just like gay couples, to have few or no kids, to have multiple relationships. Thus making it very difficult to launch a coherent argument precisely because there was little visual distinction between the two groupings. And to top it off, they throw in gay adoption, just so gays can have a “family” as well, so now they are “just like us.”

    The mistake has been, taking it at face value. At failing to understand that the engineers have all the time been playing the long game, masking their moves, disguising their real motives.

    Lenin formulated a social engineering principle that said: “He who says A must say B.” This is an example of that principle in action, except it’s been extrapolated to: “He who says A plus B must say C.”

    Of course there’s another principle just as true and just as valid operating here as well: He who fails to understand history is condemned to repeat it.

    Sadly, even though those alive today have more leisure time and more information available to us than at any other time in history, we still fail to connect the necessary dots and we still fail to perceive the truth, even as it unfolds before our eyes.

    Edit: PG, no-one denies marriage has its issues, but it is the institutional responsible for procreation and transmission of culture through the generations. If it has issues, the answer is not to destroy it, it’s to strengthen it by addressing those issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    Your suggestion of my meeting women with a higher standard of personal hygiene is very offensive…

    I apologise – blathered away without considering just what it would imply about Mrs Horne.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Fletch (6,392 comments) says:

    For anyone interested, here is a debate that happened on ElephantTV that they have made free for anyone to watch. It’s hosted by Pat Brittenden and features (on one team) a priest (Father Merv Duffy) and a young pastor (Rowan Hillsdon), and on the other side a gay Christian lesbian Chaplain Lisa Michelle, and Dr Stewart Edser (sorry if I get any of the names wrong).

    It shows both sides of the debate.
    Check out the interesting event at the end when presenter Pat bursts into tears and has to walk away for a few moments.

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

    @Dennis Horne

    “For fuck’s sake, it’s bloody obvious. Buggery is not copulation and copulation and raising any offspring is what differentiates marriage from all other relationships.”

    —————————————–
    So if a couple is infertile or doesn’t want children, then they aren’t ‘married’ or perhaps you are advocating divorce in such circumstances?

    Also are you saying that marriage is only for ‘sexual’ (missionary position only) and reproduction reasons?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Andrei (2,657 comments) says:

    LOL Pete George jumps in with feminist propaganda, from one, , Sally Steenland Director, the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative, Center for American Progress, framing marriage as a “patriarchal institution” or something.

    Marriage is not about getting your rocks off!

    Marriage is about raising children and propagating your own culture to them.

    The reason why progressives go after it with such diligence is that they do not want people transmitting their own culture to their own children, rather they want their pernicious, progressive ideologies imposed upon succeeding generations.

    Alas little men like Pete George are so easily mislead by this tosh

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Fletch (6,392 comments) says:

    PG, in each of your historical arguments, the marriage or marriage relationship still involved at least one male and one female, regardless of how many spouses or concubines, because that is Nature. And again, regardless of how strange these relationships were they strayed from the norm as ordained by God –

    So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    And –

    Jesus answered, “Don’t you know that in the beginning the Creator made a man and a woman? 5 That’s why a man leaves his father and mother and gets married. He becomes like one person with his wife. 6 Then they are no longer two people, but one. And no one should separate a couple that God has joined together.”

    Of course, I don’t expect you to agree with anything from the Bible, but still; man and women were created to be together as a couple in marriage. Some cultures may have abused the relationship, but that doesn’t mean it was normal.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. gump (1,649 comments) says:

    @Dennis Horne

    “Nonsense. The concept of marriage exists entirely independently of New Zealand and NZ Law. NZ cannot change marriage any more that it can change gravity.”

    ————————

    If you are ever involved in Family Court proceedings, I look forward to hearing you tell the Judge that your relationship exists “entirely independently of New Zealand and NZ Law.”

    The Judge will laugh at you, as will everybody else in the courtroom.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. gump (1,649 comments) says:

    @Fletch

    “Of course, I don’t expect you to agree with anything from the Bible, but still; man and women were created to be together as a couple in marriage.”

    ——————-

    Men and women were not created.

    You are building a chain of reasoning from a premise that is not true.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne needs a relieving blowjob more than any other white man in history …but as he doesn’t use bodily holes for anything other than their primary purpose he’s out of luck.

    This would explain his retarded and repressed deviant sexual dysfunction and weird obsession with other peoples body’s and lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    Marriage is about raising children and propagating your own culture to them.

    My marriage has never had anything to do with that. Many marriages clearly have nothing to do with that.

    framing marriage as a “patriarchal institution” or something.

    For a long time marriage in many cultures, including New Zealand, was a “patriarchal institution”.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    My marriage has never had anything to do with that. Many marriages clearly have nothing to do with that.

    I repeat:

    The blind fools who munt on about how it doesn’t affect their marriage or how it’s about human wights just don’t understand social engineering because they look at the wrong timeframes.

    I might add, they look at the wrong thing as well: i.e. they don’t seem to recognise the distinction between an institution and an individual instantiation of it amongst the millions of instantiations which collectively comprise the institution.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Fletch (6,392 comments) says:

    gump, we’re talking about a relationship or an institution that is still innate, despite involvement by the State.

    It’s like brother and sister: siblings that have the same parents. They are still brother and sister whether the State gets involved or not because they have the same parents. In the same way that a brother and sister have a unique relationship, I believe that the coming together of man and woman solely – involving no one else – and having children is a unique relationship that is based on an innate nature which the law supports because of children, or the possibility of same.

    The Govt did not invent marriage and cannot redefine it.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    The blind fools who munt on about how it doesn’t affect their marriage…

    The morning after SSM is introduced, if I wake up and find that my wife has gone and instead some dude is putting his cock in my arse, I’ll come on here and recant and admit that Reid was correct all along… it does affect my marriage and therefore it is my business.

    In the meantime, I would vote “for” gay marriage in any referendum that any angry person in the paper initiates.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Pete George (23,567 comments) says:

    The Govt did not invent marriage and cannot redefine it.

    The Government did not invent anything. Should we ignore all laws, taxes, property rights that successive governments have defined??

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Fletch (4,134) Says:
    April 12th, 2013 at 12:50 pm
    —————————

    The ‘coming together’ of a man and woman and having children is not really a unique relationship – animals, insects, fish etc also do the same. It is nature – however the ‘law’ is ‘man-made’ and therefore is able to be changed, depending on the requirements of ‘man’. Children are, and will continue to be produced with or without the law that binds a couple in marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    I’ll come on here and recant and admit that Reid was correct all along

    And why would you do that RRM because if you read what I said you’ll see that’s not what I said and not what I’ve ever said.

    If you do respond to someone’s comment, it’s customary to address what they say.

    Or perhaps that’s just too inconvenient for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    No, what you say is just too meaningless for me Reid.

    The sky will not fall.

    Crime will not escalate.

    “Proper” marriages will not suffer.

    Some gays who now live together with their partners in the nature of a marriage, will soon have a marriage certificate in their filing cabinet.

    Begone.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    Pete George:

    most people will accept as normal what not long ago seemed controversial.

    This happens in many areas – doesn’t necessarily make it right or desireable. One example that I am sure you can relate to, Pete, is that it is perfectly acceptable – even encouraged – for politicians to harangue each other, catch other politicians out when they fall, engage in “gotcha” politics if you like. It’s normal, but does that make it desireable?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    The sky will not fall. Crime will not escalate. “Proper” marriages will not suffer.

    So you can’t see that marriage HAS suffered since the 1920’s since contraception and divorce started to wreck their evil havoc which is the history I explained in my 12:04?

    Are you blind, or just stupid?

    BTW, I didn’t mention crime. Is that another hallucination of yours or how did you connect that to what I said?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    if I wake up and find that my wife has gone and instead some dude is putting his..

    RRM

    Its obviously full on at your place in the morning, us dullards out in the suburbs usually settle for a cup of tea and a piece of toast.

    I look at government legislation on how it will affect me and my family-the passing of this bill will not affect me or my family in the slightest. If one of my kids ever comes out and tell me he or she is gay it will still not affect me in the slightets but it might mean something to them.

    In the meantime it would be good if the government got on with governing. Which by the way they are not doing a bad job of. Not that you would know because anything positive is never reported in our media.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Fletch (6,392 comments) says:

    RRM, what hurts society, hurts me, and hurts you, even if supposedly indirectly.

    Questions

    If a parent objects to a school teaching pro-homosexuality and pulls his child out of school, and because of it is ridiculed and/or jailed, is he harmed?

    If a self-employed business owner with strong religious convictions refuses to offer his services to homosexuals and he is sued and goes bankrupt, is he harmed?
    Examples of such businesses where a person should be free to refuse services could be things like wedding photographers, masseuses, tutoring, etc.

    If a Catholic orphanage is forced to shut down because it is against its religious moral code to turn children over to homosexual couples, is someone hurt?

    If a public school teacher voices his disapproval of homosexuality on Facebook on his own time, away from work, in his own home, on his own computer, and is fired from his teaching position, is he harmed?

    If a group of pro-homosexual activists (Act-UP) disrupt the worship service of a Christian congregation by throwing condoms at the pastor, is the congregation harmed?

    If Christians are forced into silence because of fear of legal, social, and financial retribution, are they harmed?

    When morally conservative people who disapprove of homosexuality are labeled as “moral dinosaurs,” “bigots,” “hate mongers,” “right wing fanatics,” “preachers of hatred,” “intolerant,” are they harmed?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    For a long time marriage in many cultures, including New Zealand, was a “patriarchal institution”.

    Ha! the goal posts move around so frequently from the pro redefiner camp that you got to wonder whether they care about a sound argument at all.

    “give it to me” still seems the main thrust of their approach.

    Lets look at the sexual history of the world for a moment shall we?

    I was told by an angry marriage equality advocate to look at the ancient Greeks and Romans for a precedent of gay marriage and societal acceptance of gay relationships.
    But what this individual didn’t mention was the astonishing patriarchal oppression that drove much of Greek and Roman sexuality. It was so hedonistic at times and so destructive that even historians that predated the Roman acceptance of Christianity noted the frequent depravity of the times and poured scorn upon it.

    It turns out that the Romans experimented with the idea of gay marriage and then repealed it, people try to say that was because of the influence of Christianity, but it wasn’t, the move away from depraved, hedonistic sexuality had already begun before Constantine decided Christianity would be a good state religion.

    There are many parallels with Roman society and that of today, perhaps we should take the advice of my marriage equality critic after all and not repeat their errors.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Fletch (6,392 comments) says:

    The effects of Same Sex Marriage in Massachusetts –

    Anyone who thinks that same-sex “marriage” is a benign eccentricity which won’t affect the average person should consider what it has done to Massachusetts since 2004. It’s become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. The slippery slope is real. New radical demands never cease. What has happened in the last several years is truly frightening.

    On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced its Goodridge opinion, declaring that it was unconstitutional not to allow same-sex “marriage.” Six months later, despite public outrage, homosexual “weddings” began to take place. And that was just the beginning . . .

    ARTICLE

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Yvette (2,821 comments) says:

    Mark – Gay marriage is about the rights of gays whereas adoption is about the rights of Children and therefore a different debate altogether.

    They may be two different debates, but of course in having the one we are now, the second will be automatic.
    May be a pity about that, children

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Psycho Milt. Fine. I admire your intellect and I was a surprised and a trifle disappointed.

    @Judith. You really are stupid, Judith. Sorry, I don’t mean to be offensive but you are. Can you never see the big picture? In the general case marriage involves coition and offspring, just as in the general case a car has four wheels but some have three and a chair is still a chair even if one legs breaks off. You are a nitpicker and logic chopper, which is why you cannot make sense of the Bain evidence.

    @Pete George. Whatever it is or was, marriage has never involved homosexual acts.

    @The Scorned. More straw than a scarecrow. What are you building? A nest? Birdbrain. I simply don’t care what people do, apart from concern over spreading HIV, for which we can blame homosexuals, make no mistake about that. It’s calling homosexual relationships “marriage” I object to.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    They can stimulate each other through various means or use the orifices meant for partaking of food or expelling of bodily waste, but this isn’t sexual intercourse.

    Ah, the “Bill Clinton” definition of sex. Somehow I wouldn’t have picked you as a Clinton fan…

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

    @gump. Hope you didn’t feel slighted I missed your comment. I was married in a Hotel de Ville by the mayor in the suburbs of Paris. I have a Livret de Famille. NZ law has nothing to do with my marriage, except the NZ government had to produce, via the Embassy, a signed document to say the marriage would be recognised and my wife had automatic residency. The French government required we both produce medical certificates to prove we were healthy male and female.

    No one can change my marriage. It’s not my marriage I’m worried about. It’s the institution of marriage, the formalisation of a special relationship between men and women that has its roots in the beginnings of life itself.

    I say, Winter in NZ can be tough on those who cannot escape by going abroad. Let’s redefine Winter, call it Summer. Kiss it better.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Manolo (13,780 comments) says:

    For a long time marriage in many cultures, including New Zealand, was a “patriarchal institution”.

    Here we go again. The feminist has spoken.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Yvette (2,821 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne – It’s calling homosexual relationships “marriage” I object to.

    I imagine Dennis that some people will be called ‘married’ until it is apparent the partner is of the same sex and then it will be called something else.
    I don’t see the word marriage meaning anything else than man and woman and in need of an adjective to qualify it to mean something else.
    This thread is not about “marriage”, but “same sex marriage” or “gay marriage”.

    Also I don’t see the ultilmate goal – a same sex marriage in a Vatican Roman Catholic church – being achieved any time soon.

    The only reservation I have is that gay adoption will not be discussed in any way, as the issue will likely be resolved automatically by the present law.

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

    Adoption. If each case is assessed on its merits, which of course it will be, and any mother can say “No” to homosexual parents, which she cannot in the UK, I have no strong objection to homosexuals adopting others’ unwanted children.

    What I do object to is surrogacy and deliberately bringing children into this world to be brought up by two men with no likelihood of a mother in their lives. It’s a cruel trick. It’s different if it’s unavoidable, because in the former case there is a choice.

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

    Yvette. No, it’s about marriage. The queers want the word, not the meaning.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. muggins (3,787 comments) says:

    http://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-concerns

    All I can say is that if there are women who enjoy anal sex then they should be aware of the risks.
    Studies show that many prostitutes do not have anal sex because of the health risks.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    Also I don’t see the ultilmate goal – a same sex marriage in a Vatican Roman Catholic church – being achieved any time soon.

    So you’re saying that IS the ultimate goal?

    Interesting.

    Why do you think that Judith?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Dazzaman (1,140 comments) says:

    Well, wasn’t that a flaming irrational & emotive post! Just wait while I shove a couple of fingers down my throat….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Chuck Bird (4,888 comments) says:

    That is a very useful link Muggins. It something the homosexual activist should read as they will not get that advice from the NZ AIDS Foundation. I remember a TV documentary about a former Anglican Priest turned activist who told how he could not help himself and would stop for anonymous sex at a public bog on the way home to his unsuspecting wife.

    Following are more tips for increasing anal sex safety:

    Avoid inserting a penis into the mouth or vagina after it’s been inserted in the anus until your partner puts on a new condom.

    Use plenty of lubricant to reduce the risk of tissue tears. With latex condoms, always use a water-based lubricant.

    Relax prior to insertion of the penis to help reduce the risk of tears. Taking a warm bath before anal sex or lying on your stomach may make insertion easier.

    Stop if anal sex is painful.

    If you experience bleeding after anal sex or you notice a sores or lumps around the anus or a discharge coming from it, see your doctor as soon as possible.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Yvette (2,821 comments) says:

    Reid – So you’re saying that IS the ultimate goal? Why do you think that Judith?

    Not Judith, Reid, but Yvette
    “A same sex marriage in a Vatican Roman Catholic church” or something similar would be acceptance of the ultimate ‘equality’ drive.
    Does your reading give you a different ultimate social engineering goal – apart from general breakdown to traditional society so the world is more dependent of Governments which are being overtaken by corporations?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Chuck,

    are getting off on your research there young fella?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Doctor Who (52 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay. Good advice from Chuck Bird for you. Question is, will it reach another arsehole?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    Does your reading give you a different ultimate social engineering goal – apart from general breakdown to traditional society so the world is more dependent of Governments which are being overtaken by corporations?

    My reading on it is religion is the ultimate institutional target and for that reason Satan has infested that class of institution with his poison in a very assiduous way. This doesn’t mean it’s the only thing he’s infested, but he has infested religion.

    While Satan and his minions overlap each other in the way they conduct themselves my reading is that the marriage attack is designed to make us easier to control and also at the same time, corrupt us as individuals by aiming at the most intimate thing we have which is at the heart of our integrity as human beings while we travel in these Earth suits we call our bodies: sex, the life-giver.

    Satan’s minions care about the former because they like the ego trip and the comfort that unlimited power and unlimited wealth bring. Satan cares about the latter because it turns more of us away from God and toward him, which is the whole idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    I am just surprised that the name of any being would be the same as the Hebrew word for adversary. Sounds like the nickname for a court prosecutor.

    But given the Devil is just Hebrew for the slanderer (impugning the character of those on charge to infer without evidence they must be guilty by such negative profiling), it appears that Jews no less than Greeks created immortal beings to personify qualities (positive or negative – such as god of war, god of love, etc). Funny how the Greek immortals are called of false religion simply because they built idols to represent them and these inventions of the Jews are believed to be real simply because there is a book mentioning them.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. cha (4,020 comments) says:

    Not fair PeB.

    Chuck must be dead worried that all his research into clacker sex will magically turn him into a lustful cockmonster with a permanently dilated balloon knot.

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

    All debate/conflict involves a decline into adversarial positions and slanderous speech.

    One side will claim they are the good and the righteous and the other otherwise. Such ultimately leads to either war and or dehumanising of the other so that they can be judged against – so that they are deserving of death.

    Those doing this and expecting God to be on their side are simply arrogant.

    Demonising some other as less than human and then associating this other with fellow human beings when there are two sides to a dispute is a device that religion has made available to mankind and for which religion itself needs to be called to account. Judge not lest, …

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

    My reading on it is religion is the ultimate institutional target and for that reason Satan has infested that class of institution with his poison in a very assiduous way.

    Those crafty little poofters !

    Good to see that Reid is not fooled by the sodomite dammed and their deceitful master, Satan, prince of lies :)

    Keep it up Reid. Those sorts for rants are helping promote gay marriage, as what you are offering sounds more concerning to most people.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Yvette (2,821 comments) says:

    Reid – basically I’d not disagree
    So of course the higher up the ‘bastion of traditional religion’, probably the Vatican, that supposed ‘equality’ is accepted, the more the social engineering has been successful.

    What part divorce will play in further dissolving the institution may also be interesting. Apparently already proposed UK law may be forced to relax adultery as a ground for divorce – for heterosexual as well as homosexual partners, see ‘equality’ – just because they have found it too hard apparently to define what constitutes intercourse between same sex partners.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Chuck Bird (4,888 comments) says:

    cha, have you heard of bisexuals?

    Do you believe HIV+ migrants should be allowed into NZ?

    Do you believe that those found to be HIV+ positive should be required to name their sexual partners and their sexual parents be informed they may be at risk?

    When Kevin Hague was Director of the NZ AIDS Foundation he did not believe if a married man was found to be HIV+ he should be legal obliged to inform his wife.

    I think maybe we should have two blood banks – one for conservatives that does not take donations from high rick donors and one for liberals that takes blood donations from homosexuals and prostitutes as long as they say that always use a condom.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    Those sorts for rants are helping promote gay marriage, as what you are offering sounds more concerning to most people.

    Actually I was talking to Yvette Kea so I knew she would understand certain things that I didn’t have to explain as I would have if had I been addressing another commenter such as you or even “most people.”

    If you’d noticed I was talking about religion not gay marriage, or homosexuality, it was about corruption in institutions at the higher social engineering level and at that level gay marriage and homosexuality as both a concept and a practice are mere examples of trends, indicators of patterns, and it’s those Yvette and I were and are discussing.

    they have found it too hard apparently to define what constitutes intercourse between same sex partners

    Official records for “Parent 1″ and “Parent 2″ Yvette, no more mother father. Soon, passports. You name it. It’s merely yet more slice the elephant, just like they do with sex ed where now, it’s primary aged kids who get to learn about penises and vaginas and Daddy and Daddy.

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

    …..Satan…

    LOL that settles it… if this comes to a referendum, I’ll be voting for gay marriage, and I’ll do it wearing devil horns! :twisted:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=satan&t=KJV

    Highly recommend it, RRM my brother.

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

    Dennis Horne (851) Says:
    April 12th, 2013 at 1:57 pm
    ———————

    :You can’t come up with anything original can you. When you don’t have an answer you resort to the same insults. The problem for you is I see the big picture – I just don’t see the same big picture you see.

    Now, please tell me how you asked so many women if they liked anal sex or not? Was it when you had your tools in their mouth?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Longknives (4,753 comments) says:

    “Also I don’t see the ultilmate goal – a same sex marriage in a Vatican Roman Catholic church – being achieved any time soon.”

    Look no further that this movement has nothing to do with ‘equality’ and is all about sticking it to the church.
    Why the fuck would anyone who wasn’t a practicing Catholic want to get married in the Vatican?
    The movement doesn’t do itself any favours with mindless comments like this..

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    I remind the Christians commenting on this topic, that it will remain impossible to have a Christian gay marriage. That applies regardless of what laws are passed.

    Christian marriage is between a man and a woman. The bible is very clear about this. Christians invented Christian marriage and they make the rules. Simple as that. Gays are welcome to have a Christian marriage, but only between a man and a woman. Gays can not reject the clear words of the bible, then demand to be married as Christians.

    My view is the Christians do their thing and the gays do theirs. I see no conflict here, unless one side demands legislation to force the other side to comply with their beliefs.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Fletch (6,392 comments) says:

    Kea, it doesn’t work like that. It doesn’t affect only those getting married.

    What if I said to you that pedophiles people who love younger persons were allowed to marry them.
    Would you still say, ‘oh, it doesn’t affect me directly; let them do their thing”?

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

    Fletch, that is not a valid comparison. We are talking about the private and emotional lives of consenting adults. Not some other thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. mandk (993 comments) says:

    Yes, there are some crass and even loony statements from people who are against mock-marriage. And there is a good supply of foul invective from some people who are for it – this website is a particularly rich source.
    But neither of these things alter the fact that the more time goes on, the more people are coming to realise that mock-marriage is a really bad idea.

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

    Kea (3,161) Says:
    April 12th, 2013 at 5:51 pm

    … unless one side demands legislation to force the other side to comply with their beliefs.

    ————————————-

    Perfect statement. That is exactly the issue – why should one group of people force their religious beliefs on others. Well said Kea.

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

    Judith. Remember the default and neutral position is no law not laws favouring one side or the other and especially not a law inspired by a particular religious cult.

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

    Kea (3,163) Says:
    April 12th, 2013 at 6:43 pm
    —————————–

    So, we do away with legal marriage – anyone wanting a legal union does the civil thing and if they want blessing from the church – then they have that option as well. Sounds good to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    Fletch, that is not a valid comparison.

    It wasn’t on the last 50 threads he posted it on either, but that doesn’t seem to bother him any.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    neither of these things alter the fact that the more time goes on, the more people are coming to realise that mock-marriage is a really bad idea.

    Somehow I think this trend, while tiny right now, will continue as events unfold.

    Sad really. That something so bad could happen so easily in a place and time where wisdom is available so freely.

    But there we are.

    Isn’t Satan good at what he does.

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

    Judith, I personally view the creation of legal rights and obligations as being separate from the emotional bond of marriage.

    Living together, with blended finances, creates a form of legal contract and can be dealt with accordingly should the need arise.

    Issues of marriage, spirituality, faith, emotional connections, belief etc, are not the proper domain of the state. They are personal and intimate things and should not be subject to public law. Those reasons, and my preference for increased liberty over restrictions of liberty, are why I support gay marriage. It does not require anyone to compromise their beliefs. The conflict between the gay lobby and the conservative Christians is more imagined than real.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Fletch (6,392 comments) says:

    Fletch, that is not a valid comparison.

    Isn’t it?
    Well, lets say the age of consent was lowered to 12 or 13. Would you be OK with it then?
    NAMBLA is trying to get something just like that.

    After all, if it is the law then it is moral – or so progressives believe.
    So if it became law, would you have a problem with it?
    Especially if it doesn’t affect your marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    should not be subject to public law

    Kea I expect IRD, SIS, SAS and possibly GCSB after they deal with their internal issues, to be bashing down with extreme prejudice knocking on your door very soon indeed.

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

    Isn’t Satan good at what he does.

    Reid, I was beginning to tire of this endless debate, but now you have introduced a whole new angle by getting down to the core of the issue. Helen Clark Satan.

    I am sure many other readers would like you to expand on this intriguing and novel approach to the debate…

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

    Well, lets say the age of consent was lowered to 12 or 13. Would you be OK with it then?

    It would be fine by me Fletch. The average age of consent around the world is about 13. Google it and see for yourself. I know I started at 13, regardless of the law. My partner (a girl :) ) was the same age.

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

    Reid (13,413) Says:
    April 12th, 2013 at 7:04 pm
    should not be subject to public law

    Kea I expect IRD, SIS, SAS and possibly GCSB after they deal with their internal issues, to be bashing down with extreme prejudice knocking on your door very soon indeed.

    Only if they find a way to Tax the hell bound sodomite dammed and their wicked abominations, brother Reid ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Chuck Bird (4,888 comments) says:

    It would be fine by me Fletch. The average age of consent around the world is about 13. Google it and see for yourself. I know I started at 13, regardless of the law. My partner (a girl ) was the same age.

    Kea, I think it fair to ask you then if you have children? If yes and they are under 12 would you be happy for them to be sexually active at 12? If they are over 12 would you have been happy for them to be sexually active at 12?

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

    Chuck Bird, why is it fair to ask “me” anything on the basis of what the whole world is doing (except for a few uptight english speaking countries that only matter to themselves) ?

    My parents would have kicked my arse big time if they caught me. It made me more careful, not less horny.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Chuck Bird (4,888 comments) says:

    I am a parent and a grandparent. I would not have been happy to find out my children or grandchildren were sexually active at 12. I believe my view that the majority of parent and grandparents would feel the same way.

    I do not care about your sexual exploits as a child but if you are a parent and have the same view about your own children. Like many I am very angry how non parents can dictate to parents as happened with the anti-smacking bill.

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

    @Judith. No you don’t see the big picture and you are stupid. The reason you are stupid is you think that when one says, for example, the essence of marriage is copulation and rearing offspring, you think by saying some people don’t have children it somehow negates the assertion. It does not, for the simple reason that we are discussing the general case. If I said the essence of a luxury cruise liner is that it takes people on a comfortable cruise from port to port, often returning them to the port of origin, you would say, “What about the Costa Concordia, it sank”, and think you were clever.

    What you do is nitpick and sidetrack the issue, and you’ve no ability at all to distil a mass of material into a coherent narrative that satisfies the laws of logic, probability or what most people would see as common sense.

    Marriage is a special relationship between men and women because men and women generally produce offspring that they must care for, that often requiring considerable sacrifice. Marriage has never permitted homosexual acts. Calling homosexual relationships “marriage” is as daft as calling a truck a bus because bus drivers get paid more and thinking that solves a problem of “inequality”.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    What you do is nitpick and sidetrack the issue, and you’ve no ability at all to distil a mass of material into a coherent narrative that satisfies the laws of logic, probability or what most people would see as common sense.

    That’s what I’ve been telling them as well Dennis. For years and years.

    But they never seem to listen.

    I mean, what’s wrong with them?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. gump (1,649 comments) says:

    @Dennis Horne

    The essence of marriage is not copulation and child rearing.

    The essence of marriage is the emotional commitment that two people make to each other. Otherwise known as ‘love’.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird , have you checked the ages of consent around the world ?

    Before you do that, ponder for a moment that we have one of the most promiscuous societies on earth and our women the most promiscuous women in the world.

    There seems to be a correlation between higher ages of consent and the number of sexual partners. The older the age of consent, the more sex partners.

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

    gump (576) Says: April 12th, 2013 at 9:10 pm
    The essence of marriage is not copulation and child rearing. The essence of marriage is the emotional commitment that two people make to each other. Otherwise known as ‘love’.

    Wrong. From time immemorial marriage has been between men and women, concerned the special relationship of mating and child rearing.

    You want to redefine it to suit your purpose. I could redefine it to include marrying a horse, that would not alter the facts one iota.

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

    You want to redefine it to suit your purpose. I could redefine it to include marrying a horse, that would not alter the facts one iota.

    I agree. And that my friend is the best argument in support of gay marriage. It will NOT change YOUR definition one iota.

    Well said.

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

    @Kea. I said change the facts one iota. Can you not read?

    Read this then: You are a stupid cunt. By my new definition a cunt is not a cunt in this context. So of course there is no need for offence or demerit points, since by cunt I do not mean cunt as some people might think.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    The essence of marriage is the emotional commitment that two people make to each other. Otherwise known as ‘love’.

    No the essence of marriage is family which means children which requires permanence and stability gump. So why do people trivialise that by associating all of that with sex, which is what gay couples are based on? I mean, of course they may love each other blah blah but who cares? Good on them. Well done. But what does gay society have to do with raising a family?

    Last I heard, sex is not the same thing as love. Last I heard, families rely on love. Mix a relationship based on sex and transience with other relationships reliant on love and permanence and what do you get?

    But maybe I’m just not pwogwessive like the “advanced thinkers” are.

    Where sex

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne, you really do not believe your own argument. If you did believe that the facts remain the same, regardless of name, then you would not be concerned about gay marriage.

    Interesting that you seem to regard “cunt” in a negative context. As a straight guy I love cunt and will be having a big helping of it shortly. No offence taken :)

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

    @Kea. Whatever the facts about marriage, it’s still taking the word and applying it to something else.

    You didn’t object to the “stupid” element in “stupid cunt”? Interesting. By the way, doesn’t a Kea have a cloaca?

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

    Dennis, so you are seriously advancing the argument that all this debate and fuss is about semanitcs ? Wow.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Reid, why do you presume that the being you call Satan is a male, having read your posts I would have thought your adversary was a feminist.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Yvette (2,821 comments) says:

    De facto couples raise children as families, with the ‘de facto’ denoting ‘something that is such in fact’ – a marriage without the legal proclamation or record.
    So is it not the recorded exclusive commitment that defines a couple as ‘married’ – not the raising of children, as de facto couples also do that.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    As to marriage and family.

    Notwithstanding couples making a first marriage at an older age, there is a longer period before the birth of a first child and with us living older longer periods of marriage after children have left the family home.

    And family sizes are smaller – one child families in China and Europe are common.

    Many now make second marriages in which children are not intended.

    Two things separated marriage and family …

    1. the acceptance of de facto couple child rearing
    2. the acceptance of divorce and sole parent childrearing.

    And of course contraception and fertility services ended the link between the sexual act and procreation.

    Thus we now have same sex couples starting families.

    Why then do those who still link marriage with family oppose same sex marriages?

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

    @Kea. Yes, wow indeed. First take the word. Confuse people. Then conflate copulation and buggery. Hey, no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. See! What’s all the fuss.

    Then IVF and surrogacy for queers.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    IVF is only required for those with fertility problems – only sperm is required by a lesbian.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    why do you presume that the being you call Satan is a male, having read your posts I would have thought your adversary was a feminist.

    I don’t really know SPC, I just do. Why wouldn’t he be?

    And BTW, feminism is a movement comprising millions of people knowing and unknowing.

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

    @SPC. Doesn’t surrogacy require IVF, unless an egg from the surrogate is fertilised in vivo?

    Anyway, I’m sick of this … so here’s a feeble joke about marriage:

    The mother-in-law comes home and finds her son-in-law furious and packing his suitcase.

    “What happened?” she asked.

    Son-in-law: “What happened? I’ll tell you what happened! I sent an email to Mary saying that I was coming home from my trip today. I got home and guess what I found? My wife, yes your daughter, with a naked guy in our marital bed! This is the end of our marriage, I will leave forever!”

    “Calm down!” says mother-in-law, “There is something odd about this story. Mary would never do such a thing! Wait a minute while I check what happened.”

    Moments later she comes back with a big smile.

    “You see, I told you there must be a simple explanation … Mary didn’t receive your email!”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. XavierG (34 comments) says:

    The fundamental issue I have here is the unacceptable use of Underlining. IT’S NEVER ACCEPTABLE!

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

    Gayboys’ parents in NZ must think that mens arses are different to girls arses. :cool:

    No NZ mother wants their daughter to be sodomised. Fathers think that too.

    That is a readily known fact – just ask any boyfriend or husband if they’ve told their inlaws that they have sodomised their daughter – the answer would be a resounding ‘NO FUCKEN WAY’ !

    Then deep down I suspect, most mothers and fathers wouldn’t want their sons to be sodomised either!

    ‘Unconditional love’ is the PC term for “I’m disappointed – but I’ll have to live with it – so that YOU are happy!”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. MrTips (97 comments) says:

    I’m a bit confused; how does David Farrar get to see these emails and submissions, not addressed to him, when he’s not an MP or a parliamentary employee?

    Or are you suddenly accredited mainstream media now DPF?

    If, not then, I am Joe average like you and I should have the ability to see them. What am I missing here?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    That is a readily known fact – just ask any boyfriend or husband if they’ve told their inlaws that they have sodomised their daughter – the answer would be a resounding ‘NO FUCKEN WAY’ !

    Well, yes. Likewise for blow-jobs, hand-jobs, tit-fucks, finger-fucks, body-shots, rim-jobs and a lengthy list of other sex acts, up to and including ordinary old everything-where-it’s-meant-to-go-according-to-Fletch intercourse. Somehow these are topics that never arise in conversation with the in-laws…

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

    @Kea. Yes, wow indeed. First take the word. Confuse people.

    Dennis Horne, speak for yourself.

    I will not be at all confused about my sexuality, or my beliefs, if gays get married. In fact most of us do no ask politicians to define and instruct us on our intimate desires and thoughts. I am rather alarmed that you do !

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    “…..Somehow these are topics that never arise in conversation with the in-laws……”

    Other than ‘rim jobs’ the others arn’t disgusting.

    Parents wouldn’t have too much of an issue with the rest as they are generaly known as ‘foreplay’, which happens BEFORE sex: the rejuvenative act that only consists between two complimentry sexual organs. One male one female.

    And that is also how grand children are produced. Which is usually at the centre of inlaws ‘verbal dance around the topic of sex’.

    Or at least, that is what my local GP says! :cool:

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

    Harriet, your GP will offer you helpful advice on how to make babies, but may be a little too clinical for details on how to have a good fuck. Mostly people have sex for bonding and seldom does a pregnancy result. It is a big part of what we are.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    Other than ‘rim jobs’ the others arn’t disgusting.

    Meh. One person’s “disgusting” is another’s “ooh, do that some more.” Either way, your in-laws are unlikely to want the details.

    …they are generaly known as ‘foreplay’, which happens BEFORE sex…

    I hate to tell you this, but sex is sometimes just the stuff you endearingly call “foreplay.” It’s all good.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    Meh. One person’s “disgusting” is another’s “ooh, do that some more.”

    So do you find it disgusting when you’re giving someone a rim job PM, or are you a catcher and not a pitcher in that dept?

    My calculation is the only person who wouldn’t find giving someone else a rim job disgusting is Mr Slave from SouthPark and he’s not even a real person AFAIK.

    But as you say, raising that topic at the dinner table with the in-laws might not go down very well at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    My calculation is that many people are far too uptight to make useful sex partners, so it’s no surprise there’s so much infidelity about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote