Marriage Day

August 19th, 2013 at 5:47 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Six Canterbury couples are expected to wed today as the first same-sex weddings take place.

A law comes into effect this morning making New Zealand the 15th country in which same-sex couples can legally get married.

Cantabrians planning to marry today will start their big day at the registry office, which opens at 8.30am. This will be non-heterosexual couples’ first chance to pick up their wedding licences.

Department of Internal Affairs figures show six notices of intended marriage had been issued for the Canterbury region on Friday, indicating those people wanted to wed today. Nationally, 31 have been issued.

One couple hoping to make the rush from registry office to altar is Kim Earney, 38, and her fiance, Vicky, 24. She and her partner want to be one of the first couples to marry in Christchurch, and have planned an 8.30am ceremony at Del Mar in Ferrymead.

A great day for those who want to get married, but previously have been unable to. As a supporter of the institution of marriage, I think it is excellent that more loving couples who want to make a life-long commitment to each other can no do so through marriage.

Christchurch churches remain divided over same-sex marriages, with some happy to perform ceremonies at their premises and others firmly opposed.

No Catholic churches or Anglican churches would perform the ceremonies or allow them in their churches, as “marriage is currently defined as between a man and a woman”.

Their churches, including the Cardboard Cathedral and the Church of the Good Shepherd, would not be used for same-sex weddings.

However, other denominations in Canterbury welcomed the new law. Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians and Hindus have left it up to individual parishes to decide whether to facilitate such weddings.

Crave Metropolitan Community Church spiritual leader Neil Hellewell said the church was “gay affirming” and would happily perform the ceremonies.

Durham St Methodist Church Reverend Mary Caygill said her parish was also in full support.

“The feeling of the congregation is that we want to be a place same-sex couples can come if they want to get married in a church.”

As it should be, it is up to each religion to decide for itself what their policy should be. Separation of church and state is a good thing.

Tags:

258 Responses to “Marriage Day”

  1. Pete George (23,345 comments) says:

    And I’m sure the sun will rise again tomorrow too – so more people can have the choice to get married, no matter what their sexual orientation is.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 29 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. big bruv (13,571 comments) says:

    Lol….this thread will reach 100+ comments. Most of them will be from religious bigots.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 24 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. MT_Tinman (3,055 comments) says:

    big bruv (11,416) Says:
    August 19th, 2013 at 6:22 am
    Lol….this thread will reach 100+ comments.

    Two of which will be worth reading :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. expat (4,048 comments) says:

    To paraphrase

    Froth froth, some bronze age superstition reference froth froth.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. ciaron (1,389 comments) says:

    Getting the boot in early I see – Stay classy fellas.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. expat (4,048 comments) says:

    Adam and Steve froth froth

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. bringbackdemocracy (416 comments) says:

    It isn’t real marriage.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 29 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. eszett (2,374 comments) says:

    Sure is.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Ian McK (237 comments) says:

    These aids spreading weirdos should be bundled into a plane and sent to Iran . . . there they would get what they deserve! The same going for all the filth that supported this disgusting Bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. bringbackdemocracy (416 comments) says:

    A Guy goes into his Doctor. ” Doctor, Doctor, I’ve got AIDS, you’ve got to help me, please give me something” The Doctor says ” O.K take this packet of prunes” The guy says ” Will it cure my AIDS?” “No” says the Doctor, “But it will show you what your backside was made for”

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Griff (7,008 comments) says:

    All the homosexually obsessed perverted christian sickos will be bleating about someone else’s sexuality and how they would like some sucky bum poking sexing as well.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. eszett (2,374 comments) says:

    yep, griff, didn’t take long, bbd and Ian Mck already started.
    Nice to see such compassion and tolerance.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    Griff, which one are you you marrying today: Mr Pot or Mr Weed?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. big bruv (13,571 comments) says:

    Careful Griff, you will wear out the skin on your knuckles if you don’t stop dragging them along.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. nasska (10,917 comments) says:

    “I give you this ring as a sign of my love”.

    That’s going to have a whole new meaning tonight.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. big bruv (13,571 comments) says:

    Ian McK

    You sound like a man who is hiding something, I suspect you are still in the closet and not brave enough to admit that you would like to smoke a bit of cock.

    Come on now, it is 2013, be brave and admit that you like men.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Judith (8,460 comments) says:

    Well just as I would wish good luck to any other couple venturing into the realm of marriage, I wish good luck to those same sex couples who embark on the same journey.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Judith (8,460 comments) says:

    Ian McK (8) Says:
    August 19th, 2013 at 7:18 am
    These aids spreading weirdos should be bundled into a plane and sent to Iran . . . there they would get what they deserve! The same going for all the filth that supported this disgusting Bill.

    You do realise that Aids is spread by heterosexual couples as well, don’t you? Would you like all them to go to Iran as well? Are we to take it from your posts that you have never embarked on a sexual relationship with any human being then? (please note I have deliberately specified humans, any relationship you might have with your sheep, goat, horse, budgie or goldfish is your business) :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. big bruv (13,571 comments) says:

    “Separation of church and state is a good thing”

    Not just a good thing DPF, it is vital and something that we should introduce into NZ without delay. We could start with removing the daily prayer from Parliament.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Don the Kiwi (1,650 comments) says:

    Yes its started.
    Its unfortunate that amongst some reasonable comments supporting either side of this topic, we have the puerile stupidity of the likes of big bruv and Griff doing nothing but pour abuse on those they disagree with; and Ian McK is little better.

    I disagree totally with same sex marriage – it is a societal institution made for the raising of children in a family, in a covenant between one man and one woman. That’s what marriage is. Two of the same sex cannot be properly married.

    However, those who are kidding themselves that they are married, I wish them happiness and fidelity to each other, in the same way that a civil union does, and I hope their artificial marriage lasts.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Longknives (4,686 comments) says:

    What kind of ‘Desperate for Publicity’ saddos would get married on a Monday??
    Kind of confirms that it isn’t about the ‘Marriage’ of two people at all….

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    A law comes into effect this morning

    Strictly speaking that should be: “a rule comes into effect this morning”. Politicians are nothing if not vainglorious.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Separation of church and state is a good thing

    If they removed their hollow religious ritual from parliament then they would look particularly stupid in their making of oaths, since oaths are an appeal to deity. Separation of church and state may be a good thing, but separation of deity from state is monumental foolishness.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Dirty Rat (383 comments) says:

    Be careful of the Earthquakes today Wellington

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. kowtow (7,955 comments) says:

    “Marriage equality” is simply more cultural Marxism.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. eszett (2,374 comments) says:

    However, those who are kidding themselves that they are married, I wish them happiness and fidelity to each other, in the same way that a civil union does, and I hope their artificial marriage lasts.

    And to those who are kidding themselves that these couples are not really married, I wish them happiness and peace. In the same way that all other marriages that they may disagree with, these true marriages will have no effect on them whatsoever.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. eszett (2,374 comments) says:

    kowtow, the master of meaningless platitudes

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    I’m still confused: wasn’t the Civil Unions legislation supposed to fix all this “inequality”? Was it?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. eszett (2,374 comments) says:

    If they removed their hollow religious ritual from parliament then they would look particularly stupid in their making of oaths, since oaths are an appeal to deity. Separation of church and state may be a good thing, but separation of deity from state is monumental foolishness.

    Ever heard of affirmations?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. MT_Tinman (3,055 comments) says:

    kowtow (4,941) Says:
    August 19th, 2013 at 8:35 am
    “Marriage equality” is simply more cultural Marxism.

    This marriage thing, the way you describe it (one man, one woman) is about the same age as Marxism but I can’t find any other similarity.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Ever heard of affirmations?

    AFAIK affirmations are not used in NZ when declaring allegiance to the Crown. The state is happy to receive the benefit of making oath, but refuses to acknowledge the corresponding obligation of acknowledging the exisetnce of deity, specifically the role of deity within the common law.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. gump (1,553 comments) says:

    @kowtow

    “Marriage equality” is simply more cultural Marxism.”

    ——————–

    Cultural Marxism???

    I challenge you to name a communist state that permits same-sex marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    Unstoppable. It’ll be here soon: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/third-gender-option-to-become-available-on-german-birth-certificates-a-916940.html

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    these true marriages

    True marriages are de jure common law marriages. The state is in the business of licencing civil unions, which are usually called marriages.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. LiberalismIsASin (288 comments) says:

    Disgusting. Vile. Evidence that immoral morons now run the country. Changes nothing for me and my family. And as for same sex parenting – that is child abuse.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. ChardonnayGuy (1,187 comments) says:

    No, bigots, you cannot marry your sibling. I know you lot are seriously inbred, but sheesh, do you have to keep bringing it up so repeatedly? Incidentally, zoophilia is legal in the Australian Antarctic Territory and Norfolk Island, so feel free to sledge away at our nearest neighbour and beloved Anzac cousins…:)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. ChardonnayGuy (1,187 comments) says:

    No, LibIsASin, child abuse is what fundamentalist leader Graham Capill did to three little girls, resulting in a nine year prison sentence, remember?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. dime (9,676 comments) says:

    “And I’m sure the sun will rise again tomorrow too” – god youre a light weight.

    I hope the media will be all over the first gay divorce too. Just for some balance.

    The lady hosking had on this morning was a real ambassador for the gay community. Pure class. Pretty sure she called anyone opposed to her lifestyle a turd.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Michael (899 comments) says:

    If you don’t like, don’t go when invited.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. gump (1,553 comments) says:

    @Manolo

    I don’t know if you’re being serious, but babies born in NZ with medically recognised intersex conditions are already given a hyphen on their certificate of live birth (it can be changed later once the gender identity is finalised). We also allow transgender and intersex people to apply for a gender marker of “X” on their passports.

    Why does this worry you?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Andrei (2,532 comments) says:

    Lol….this thread will reach 100+ comments. Most of them will be from religious bigots.

    Well looking at it so far it is the Christian haters that dominate the first forty

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. the conservative (59 comments) says:

    Gay marriage supporters view everything in the abstract. ‘It’s all about love and equality,’ they say, but that is not reality. My wife and I walked through a park the other day where lots of children were playing club soccer. There were mums and dads walking around with their children; I didn’t see dads and dads walking around with children and I am so pleased I didn’t. Can you imagine the emotional torment a child would go through at a park like that with two daddies as parents when all the other kids have real parents? This law is a shocking betrayal of children—that is reality.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    If you don’t like, don’t go when invited.

    But more effectively, if you don’t like, then stop calling NZ legislation “law”. There is no good reason to call it law, calling it “rules” is more accurate.

    The meaning of marriage is fundamental to society. If you play along with these clowns then there is no limit to how dysfunctional life in this country can become.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. eszett (2,374 comments) says:

    UglyTruth (1,417) Says:
    August 19th, 2013 at 8:57 am
    Ever heard of affirmations?

    AFAIK affirmations are not used in NZ when declaring allegiance to the Crown. The state is happy to receive the benefit of making oath, but refuses to acknowledge the corresponding obligation of acknowledging the exisetnce of deity, specifically the role of deity within the common law.

    The New Zealand Oath of Allegiance is defined by the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957. All Oaths can be taken in either Māori or English form. It is possible to take an affirmation, which has the same legal effect as an Oath.

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

    Most of them will be from religious bigots.

    So what is a bigot anyway?

    bigot (n.) 1590s, “sanctimonious person, religious hypocrite,” from French bigot (12c.)

    hypocrite (n.) c.1200, ypocrite, from Old French ypocrite (12c., Modern French hypocrite), from Church Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokrites “stage actor, pretender, dissembler,” from hypokrinesthai (see hypocrisy).

    Putting it mildly, the NZ parliament has never been real about religious issues. If you put it in the original context, they would get a spanking on par with that received by the Pharisees.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. eszett (2,374 comments) says:

    the conservative (49) Says:
    August 19th, 2013 at 9:20 am
    Gay marriage supporters view everything in the abstract. ‘It’s all about love and equality,’ they say, but that is not reality. My wife and I walked through a park the other day where lots of children were playing club soccer. There were mums and dads walking around with their children; I didn’t see dads and dads walking around with children and I am so pleased I didn’t. Can you imagine the emotional torment a child would go through at a park like that with two daddies as parents when all the other kids have real parents? This law is a shocking betrayal of children—that is reality.

    And you base your assessment on what exactly?

    There are lots of children that have same sex parents in NZ and around the world. They are no worse off than kids with “mums and dads”. Long term studies have proven that again and again. A loving and caring environment is far more important than the parents gender.

    The “shocking betrayal” exist only in your feeble mindset .

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    It is possible to take an affirmation

    Not always:

    http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/r/review-of-oaths-and-affirmations-a-public-discussion-paper-may-2004/part-d-specific-oath

    A number of public office holders must take the following oath of allegiance set out in the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957[17].

    “I, [full name], swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.”

    The Governor-General, Members of Parliament and Judges are among those required to take the oath of allegiance.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. iMP (2,345 comments) says:

    Why can’t three people get married if they love each other? Isn’t sexuality now a human right? DISCRIMINATION and intolerance.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Andrei (2,532 comments) says:

    There are lots of children that have same sex parents in NZ

    No there are no children with same sex parents anywhere in the world because this is a biological impossibility.

    What there are a children being raised in same sex households where one or both of their biological parents is absent.

    As for the long term prognosis for these children and for society at large nobody can say for sure but my sense is that it is not good in either case.

    When western women are not producing enough children to replace the population and western men are being discouraged from taking on the responsibilities of fatherhood while Muslim families are typically producing five or more children in most of the gay marriage countries – well ………..

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Longknives (4,686 comments) says:

    ChardonnayGuy- Just because you chose to drag up the Graham Capill thing-

    http://rt.com/news/pedophile-syndicate-russian-boy-481/

    Or is it okay when members of your beloved ‘Rainbow Community’ do it?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. dime (9,676 comments) says:

    “Well looking at it so far it is the Christian haters that dominate the first forty”

    you’re not exactly easy to like dude. considering youre supposed to be a nice, loving, forgiving christian.. i find you to be an awful human being. probably the worst ive ever come across on a blog.

    as for christians in general. they get a bad rap.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. eszett (2,374 comments) says:

    No there are no children with same sex parents anywhere in the world because this is a biological impossibility.

    Yes there are. The same way infertile couples have children of their own. Or are you going around and saying that these children are not their children?

    Your narrowmindedness is baffling at times.

    As for the long term prognosis for these children and for society at large nobody can say for sure but my sense is that it is not good in either case.

    It can and it has. You just don’t like the conclusion because, once again, it contradicts with what you would like to belive.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. ChardonnayGuy (1,187 comments) says:

    Longknives…no, it isn’t. However, most instances of child sexual abuse are committed by straight men… http://psychology.udavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

    http://www.internationalorder.org/scandal_response.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. eszett (2,374 comments) says:

    UglyTruth (1,420) Says:
    August 19th, 2013 at 9:37 am
    It is possible to take an affirmation

    Not always:

    Yes always. Read the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957. You can always either take an Oath or Affirmation.

    4 Right to make affirmation instead of oath
    (1)Every person shall be entitled as of right to make his affirmation, instead of taking an oath, in all places and for all purposes where an oath is required by law, and every such affirmation shall be of the same force and effect as an oath.

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1957/0088/latest/DLM314574.html?search=ts_act_Oaths_resel&p=1

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Longknives (4,686 comments) says:

    “Longknives…no, it isn’t. However, most instances of child sexual abuse are committed by straight men…”

    Ha,ha- Not for long. Just wait until these guys start adopting kids…(and they will get them, at the expense of Hetero couples, by screaming “Bigot” every time their motives are queried)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. eszett (2,374 comments) says:

    iMP (1,501) Says:
    August 19th, 2013 at 9:41 am
    Why can’t three people get married if they love each other? Isn’t sexuality now a human right? DISCRIMINATION and intolerance.

    They can. Polygamy (under certain circumstances) is already legal in NZ.

    But you are more than welcome to campaign for it if you think this is such an issue. What’s stopping you?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Reg (544 comments) says:

    ….. And then a little girl said “Mummy why are two men getting married”, and every one repeated the question and started to laugh….
    Face it, you’ve been “had” by a clique of Gay activists who have weaved an impossible concept into imaginary contruct that can only be peceived by the liberal intelligentsia.
    The Gay Emperor has no clothes!!

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. ciaron (1,389 comments) says:

    eszett (2,051) Says:

    Yes there are. The same way infertile couples have children of their own. Or are you going around and saying that these children are not their children?

    Excuse the ignorance, but if given the situation of two males, how can an artificially conceived child possess DNA from both males? doesn’t the egg retain the DNA of the producer?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Fletch (6,151 comments) says:

    Longknives…no, it isn’t. However, most instances of child sexual abuse are committed by straight men…

    Oh really?

    Psychologist Paul Cameron, reviewing more than nineteen different academic reports and peer reviewed studies in a 1985 Psychological Reports article, found that homosexuals account for between 25% and 40% of all child molestation. Sex researchers Freund, Heasman, Racansky, and Glancy, for example, in an 1984 Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy article, put the number at 36%. Erickson, Walbek, Sely, in a 1988 Archives of Sexual Behavior article, places it at 86% when the children being molested are male. 47

    However, it should be noted that homosexuals account for only 2% of the population which statistically means that a child molester is ten to twenty times more likely to be homosexual than heterosexual. In other words, heterosexual molestations proportionally are a fraction compared to homosexual molestations. More recent studies confirm this statistic. In 2000, the Archives of Sexual Behavior published an article by seven sex researchers concluding that “around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles.”48

    Sexual violence expert and professor of psychiatry Eugene Abel, in a 1987 study published by the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, concluded that homosexuals sexually molest young boys with an incidence that is five times greater than the molestation of girls. 49

    In a 1992 study published in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, sex researchers K. Freud and R. I. Watson found that homosexual males are three times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia and that the average pedophile victimizes between 20 and 150 boys before being arrested. 50

    Other data has come to the forefront confirming that sex with young boys is a way of life for many homosexuals. In 1993, the United States Army, Office of Judge Advocate, issued a study that analyzed 102 court martial convictions having to do with soldiers involved in homosexual acts over a four-year period. The study found that in 47% of the cases, homosexual men victimized a youth. 51

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Chuck Bird (4,773 comments) says:

    @Judith

    You do realise that Aids is spread by heterosexual couples as well, don’t you?

    That is of course true. However, if you check the following link and download some of the newsletters you will see homosexuals are greatly over represented in HIV statistic in New Zealand.

    http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/hiv-and-aids/aids-new-zealand-newsletter

    Male homosexuals make up less than 3% of the population yet account over 50% over the HIV notifications and that is an underestimate. This is because many of the innocent women who have become infected have been infected by closet bisexuals and that is counted as heterosexual contact when it is really bisexual contact.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. MT_Tinman (3,055 comments) says:

    Longknives (2,806) Says:
    August 19th, 2013 at 10:06 am
    “Longknives…no, it isn’t. However, most instances of child sexual abuse are committed by straight men…”

    Ha,ha- Not for long. Just wait until these guys start adopting kids…(and they will get them, at the expense of Hetero couples, by screaming “Bigot” every time their motives are queried)

    My understanding is that there are significant numbers of same-sex couples of the female persuasion already raising children.

    I admit I’m not overly uncomfortable with the prospect simply because many years ago I boarded at a place run by a transexual (man living as woman) person who was raising a child (niece) as his own.

    The child was happy, healthy and loved as much as any I’ve known.

    To me that is poofta, one, opponent nil in the scheme of things.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. ciaron (1,389 comments) says:

    MT,

    A quick google search might change that scoreline a bit.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. gump (1,553 comments) says:

    @Fletch

    You’ve posted that link before. So I will repost the rebuttal I provided last time.

    ————————-

    The Blanchard paper you are quoting from makes no assessment of the adult sexual attraction of the offenders that were profiled:

    “Blanchard et al. (2000). Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 463-478.

    This study categorized convicted sex offenders according to whether they molested or reported sexual attraction to boys only, girls only, or both boys and girls. These groups were labeled, respectively, homosexual pedophiles, heterosexual pedophiles, and bisexual pedophiles. This classification referred to their attractions to children. Adult sexual orientation (or even whether the men had an adult sexual orientation) wasn’t assessed.”

    http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Judith (8,460 comments) says:

    This is because many of the innocent women who have become infected have been infected by closet bisexuals and that is counted as heterosexual contact when it is really bisexual contact.

    This is exactly the sort of statement that spreads aids. People believing that Aids can only be contacted from someone that is a ‘closet bisexual’ can give you aids if you are heterosexual.

    That is blatantly incorrect. There have been many samples where people who are not bisexual, closet or otherwise, have contracted the virus and infected others.

    Yes, it is true that more notifications have come from the gay community. The anus is extremely vulnerable to the spread of disease because of the absorption ability – however, some of the reasons that there have been so many notifications via the gay community is because they have made a determined effort to raise awareness of the issue and to get their members have regular check ups. Unfortunately, because of the sort of message you have given above, many heterosexual people do not take the same precautions, nor have the awareness and do not have check ups, and at times, die of other aids related illnesses, without being aware of their condition until it is too late.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Redbaiter (8,032 comments) says:

    Funny how the real bigots and haters are at the top of the thread and all identified by their hate and bigotry against Christianity. Ignorant intolerant secular progressives mostly with such shallow political and intellectual perceptions they probably read comic books to stretch their intellects.

    Ian McK too is a homosexual plant, and by his obvious deceit here, typifies the dishonest and cowardly means by which the act that allows these farcical parodies of marriage was brought into law.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. backster (2,123 comments) says:

    No more flying AirNZ for me.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Louis Houlbrooke (9 comments) says:

    Reading some of these comments you’d think that the marriage equality law was some piece of government mind control. Personally I believe we can all think for ourselves. No-one’s forcing y’all to consider gay unions ‘marriages’. Call them whatever you like. It shouldn’t matter what language the state uses – laws don’t determine the meaning of marriage, people do.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Fletch (6,151 comments) says:

    gump, it’s not a study, it is of a review of nineteen different reports.
    So you’d have to say that all nineteen reports are wrong.

    Here are some more if you want –

    A number of studies performed over a period spanning more than half a century- many of which were performed by homosexuals or their sympathizers-have shown that an extremely large percentage of sexually active homosexuals also participate in child sexual molestation. This is not “homophobia” or “hatred,” this is simple scientific fact.

    For example; 

    Homosexual Alfred Kinsey, the preeminent sexual researcher in the history of sexual research, found in 1948 that 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old. 4 

    Avery recent (2000) study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6- 20 times higher among pedophiles.”5 

    Another 2000 study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “. . . all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories” for sexual activity.” These age categories were fifteen and twenty years old. 6 

    Yet another recent study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically infrequent phenomena. The first of these is homosexuality. . . Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30-40%.”7 

    A 1989 study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that “. . . the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men . . . the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality.” 8 

    A 1988 study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 86% of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. 9 

    In a 1984 Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy article, sex researchers found that “The proportional prevalence of [male] offenders against male children in this group of 457 offenders against children was 36 percent.”10 

    Homosexual activists Karla Jay and Allen Young revealed in their 1979 Gay Report that 73% of all homosexuals have acted as “chicken hawks” – that is, they have preyed on adolescent or younger boys. 11 

    In a 1992 study published in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, sex researchers K. Freud and R. I. Watson found that homosexual males are three times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia, and that the average pedophile victimizes between 20 and 150 boys before being arrested. 12

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Redbaiter (8,032 comments) says:

    A same-sex couple who requested a cake for their wedding in January but were refused service by a Gresham bakery have filed a complaint with the state, alleging Sweet Cakes by Melissa discriminated against them based on their sexual orientation.

    “Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries’ civil rights division will investigate to determine if the business violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, which protects the rights of gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people in employment, housing and public accommodations. …

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Judith (8,460 comments) says:

    Longknives (2,806) Says:
    August 19th, 2013 at 10:06 am
    “Longknives…no, it isn’t. However, most instances of child sexual abuse are committed by straight men…”

    Ha,ha- Not for long. Just wait until these guys start adopting kids…(and they will get them, at the expense of Hetero couples, by screaming “Bigot” every time their motives are queried)

    Gay couples are already, and have been for sometime raising children in New Zealand and there have been no extraordinary negative social statistics arise from this. I’m sorry, but we do not have to wait, your thesis is disproved, before you even start.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Redbaiter (8,032 comments) says:

    Look, you have every right to dress up in two wedding gowns or two tuxedos, get pretend “married” and play house to your hearts’ content. You do not have the right, however, to force others to abandon their sincerely held religious beliefs, thousands of years of history and the immutable reality of human biology to engage your little fantasy. No amount of hand-wringing, gnashing of teeth, suing Christians or filing charges against those of us who live in marriage reality will make us recognize your silly so-called “marriage equality.”

    http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/liberals-quest-to-rehabilitate-christians/

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Redbaiter (8,032 comments) says:

    Rather than trying to compel these Christians to participate in their counter-Christian mock marriage, all Ms. Rachel and Ms. Laurel had to do was take their business down the street. There are, no doubt, many bakers who share their worldly sexual morals (or lack thereof).

    Imagine if a Christian came into a “gay”-owned bakery and demanded a cake with these words: “Homosexual behavior is shameful: Romans 1:27.” Think the left would be clamoring for charges against the baker if he refused? Me neither. In fact, I’d be the first to defend his right to “discriminate” against the Christian.

    http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/liberals-quest-to-rehabilitate-christians/

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Griff (7,008 comments) says:

    fletch if we profiled adult heterosexual men most would prefer young girls . Even amongst woman the attraction towards youth is recognized as Cougars :lol:
    This fact is uncontroversial.
    The idea that gay men having sex with young people is pedophilia is a reflection of your bigotry. Screwing a youth of 17 is not kiddy sex.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Lucia Maria (2,239 comments) says:

    Man raised by Lesbians speaks out against Gay Marriage

    There aren’t many adult children around that speak up about their experience of growing up with same-sex parents as many of them are psychologically damaged already and therefore aren’t strong enough to cope with the massive backlash against them. The guy in the You-Tube clip is one of the very few who speaks for the many who can’t speak for themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Judith (8,460 comments) says:

    Pedophilia is defined as the sexual attraction to the immature form.

    People tend to get muddled between what we define as sexual deviancy, where someone old than 16 is sexually attracted to a minor, under 16. However, as we know, even a young girl of 11 can be sexually developed. The law makes certain definitions regarding people under 12, generally based on the premise that they will not be physically mature.

    People that argue gay men having sex with young people as pdeophilia are wrong, unless that person has not reached puberty.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Rhodie (28 comments) says:

    “Moral Standards in New Zealand take another sickening plunge.” might be a more appropriate headline for today.

    Meanwhile, Down at the Registry Office….

    Hi All

    In light of today being the first day that genderless ‘marriages’ have been introduced in to New Zealand, we thought this commentary was timely.
    “Next.”
    “Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage licence.”
    “Names?”
    “Tim and Jim Jones.”
    “Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance.”
    “Yes, we’re brothers.”
    “Brothers? You can’t get married.”
    “Why not? Aren’t you giving marriage licences to same gender couples?”
    “Yes, thousands. But we haven’t had any siblings. That’s incest! Why do you want to get married?”
    “For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don’t have any other prospects.”
    “But we’re issuing marriage licences to gay and lesbian couples who’ve been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman.”
    “Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I’m straight doesn’t mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim.”
    “And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?”
    “All right, all right. I’ll give you your licence. Next.”
    “Hi. We are here to get married.”
    “Names?”
    “John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson.”
    “Who wants to marry whom?”
    “We all want to marry each other.”
    “But there are four of you!”
    “That’s right. You see, we’re all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship.”
    “But we’ve only been granting licences to gay and lesbian couples.”
    “So you’re discriminating against bisexuals!”
    “No, it’s just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it’s just for couples.”
    “Since when are you standing on tradition?”
    “Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.”
    “Who says? There’s no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The politicians said there should be equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage licence!”
    “All right, all right. Next.”
    “Hello, I’d like a marriage licence.”
    “In what names?”
    “David Deets.”
    “And the other man?”
    “That’s all. I want to marry myself.”
    “Marry yourself? What do you mean?”
    “Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return……..”
    “That does it! I quit! You people are making a mockery of marriage!”
    (Source unknown)

    We trust that gives you a smile on a Monday! Says it all, doesn’t it.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. ChardonnayGuy (1,187 comments) says:

    Hilarious. It seems the bigots actually think we should be bound by the eighth twelfth century prescientific and premodern nostrums of Aquinas and scholastic theology. Hello? What about the seventeenth century scientific revolution and the Enlightenment? And hey, the bigots can quote all the junk science that they want, their ‘sources’ have already been dissected within New Zealand regulatory institutions and their manifest methodological failings made apparent by their professional peers. Why don’t they head off to somewhere which still practises their brand of bigotry- like Uganda, Nigeria or Russia?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Redbaiter (8,032 comments) says:

    “Reading some of these comments you’d think that the marriage equality law was some piece of government mind control.”

    Hey idiot, what distant galaxy did you just time warp in from?

    Of course its all about mind control given that the whole farcical “marriage equality” campaign was underpinned by a soviet style propaganda campaign. And read the link above. The person who bought the prosecution against the cake bakers says its purpose is not to punish but to “rehabilitate”.

    Its just the same old progressive shit, the screaming hysteria if you don’t think like them and using the power of the state to get you to do so.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Chuck Bird (4,773 comments) says:

    @Judith

    This is exactly the sort of statement that spreads aids. People believing that Aids can only be contacted from someone that is a ‘closet bisexual’ can give you aids if you are heterosexual.

    Judith, I do mind you disagreeing with what I say but I do take exception to you claim I said what I have not said. I have never said that AIDS can only be contracted from a bisexual. The certainly can be heterosexual to heterosexual contact. It is the ratio according the numbers in the population that is the issue. That is why NZ Blood Services does not accept blood from homosexuals. The do not question me to see I am a homophobe.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. kowtow (7,955 comments) says:

    Manolo is quite right ,the Civil Union Bill was meant to fix all this inequality lark,just like that other piece of socialist legislation the anti smacking bill was going to end all that child murdering we’re so big on here in Aotearoa,formerly New Zealand.

    Our parliament can legislate away all evil and inequality and create Utopia.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Judith (8,460 comments) says:

    @ Lucia Maria

    Many young people raised by same sex couples are happy content individuals, predominantly heterosexual, who don’t speak out because they have no need to.

    I could sit here all day posting clips, articles, book references, research reports etc, from people who were harmed by their parents heterosexual marriage/relationship, and further more, many many articles by people who were severely harmed by their heterosexual parent’s religious beliefs.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Longknives (4,686 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria- That guy speaking out against Gay Marriage is nothing more than a “Hateful Bigot”!
    Oh wait….

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Judith (8,460 comments) says:

    @ Chuck Bird

    I do not need to question you to see that you are a homo phobe. It is blatantly obvious what you are.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Chuck Bird (4,773 comments) says:

    @Judith

    However, NZ Blood Services is very appreciative of my blood. Why do you think they do not want blood from homosexuals?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Fletch (6,151 comments) says:

    I will make again the point I made late on the GD thread yesterday.

    If people followed the Biblical principles about sex and marriage – that men sleeping with men is wrong and women sleeping with women is wrong; that all sex before marriage is wrong and to stay chaste until marriage; to be faithful in marriage and not to cheat on your spouse – then there would likely be hardly any venereal disease and likely no AIDS.

    We’d have less need of condoms, the Pill, Gardasil, abortion, etc.

    Agree or disagree?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Every person shall be entitled…

    That only applies to persons. When you are at the top of the food chain in the civil system you’re not really acting as a person in matters of allegiance. Remember the act is from 1957, but the 2004 discussion paper from the MoJ makes no mention of affirmations for these people.

    “The Governor-General, Members of Parliament and Judges are among those required to take the oath of allegiance.”

    http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/r/review-of-oaths-and-affirmations-a-public-discussion-paper-may-2004/part-d-specific-oath

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Judith (8,460 comments) says:

    @ Chuck Bird

    The NZ Blood Services don’t accept my blood, or any of my children’s blood despite us having a very rare blood type, and to the best of my knowledge, none of them or me have ever had a homosexual relationship….. so your point is?

    The NZ Blood service also doesn’t take blood from people under the influence of alcohol.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. gump (1,553 comments) says:

    @Fletch

    Your “report” deliberately misinterprets and draws erroneous conclusions from the other studies. Read the rebuttal that I posted – the Blanchard study (reference 48 in your link) quoted in the report made no assessment of the adult sexual orientation of the abusers. The only evidence provided by your report is evidence of its author’s stupidity.

    The next set of links you posted is equally hilarious. The average age for commencing sexual intercourse in New Zealand is 16.5 years – so over 50% of all New Zealanders have had sex with a person under the age of 17.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Chuck Bird (4,773 comments) says:

    @Judith

    Why has NZ Blood Services declinded to take your blood or any of your children’s?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Judith (8,460 comments) says:

    To clarify that further, homosexual males can give blood at the NZ Blood Service, under certain conditions, so it is wrong to say that homosexuals cannot donate blood.

    There are actually a large number of conditions that people are excluded from donating blood – as outlined on this link….

    http://www.nzblood.co.nz/Give-blood/Donating/Detailed-eligibility-criteria

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Judith (8,460 comments) says:

    @ Chuck Bird

    Why has NZ Blood Services declinded to take your blood or any of your children’s?

    That is not any of your business, sorry, but it has nothing to do with the subject of homosexuality.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Chuck Bird (4,773 comments) says:

    @Judith

    If it has nothing to do with the subject of homosexuality why did you introduce it into this debate?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Left Right and Centre (2,883 comments) says:

    I don’t even need to read this thread – I can take a wild guess that some of the biggest faggots you’ll ever hope to meet are royally redlining their cock right up this thread’s jacksie….

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Jack5 (4,906 comments) says:

    Pete George, unable to sleep because of the addiction condition bloggitis posted (at 5.56 am!!!):

    ..And I’m sure the sun will rise again tomorrow too …

    In your Dunedin weather in August, how will you be able to tell, Pete?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Judith (8,460 comments) says:

    @ Chuck Bird

    Why did you enter the fact the NZ Blood Service takes your blood into the debate – has that got anything to do with homosexuality?

    I entered it because you made the statement regarding the fact that they take your blood, and don’t take the blood of homosexual males (which isn’t exactly correct). My point was that there are many reasons why they don’t take blood, as you can see from the link I provided.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Charlie-Mills (7 comments) says:

    The debate on same-sex marriage has continued throughout the years, and societies are slowly changing their minds to follow the years that are progressing. As the years pass our minds need to adapt to change and consider broader options. Another person’s marriage is not going to affect another person in any way. Same sex marriage has been accepted in New Zealand due to the amount of votes that agreed with the bill’s passing. The amount of churches accepting same sex marriages as of today is encouraging considering the amount of religious disagreements. In the future we can only move forward, can we not?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    @Jack5,
    Under orders from UnitedFuture’s headquarters to raise the profile of the party by all necessary means.
    He will not sleep or eat to serve his master. The best example of servitude in a long, long time.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Lucia Maria (2,239 comments) says:

    Judith,

    Many young people raised by same sex couples are happy content individuals, predominantly heterosexual, who don’t speak out because they have no need to.

    Do you know any that are adults? I mean, real adults with a bit of life experience. Like the man in my clip who is 42 years old and has done a lot of research in this area.

    I could sit here all day posting clips, articles, book references, research reports etc, from people who were harmed by their parents heterosexual marriage/relationship, and further more, many many articles by people who were severely harmed by their heterosexual parent’s religious beliefs.

    The difference being that those children came from those parents, while as in same-sex parenting, only one of the parents is an actual parent. The other is a person that the child is pressured to treat like they would an opposite sex parent, all the while presenting a brave face to the outside world and never being able to talk about their real feelings of loss for the parent they don’t have. Dr Lopez’s biggest condemnation is for those who create these sorts of family situations on purpose.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Judith (8,460 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria (1,496) Says:
    August 19th, 2013 at 11:33 am

    Do you know any that are adults? I mean, real adults with a bit of life experience. Like the man in my clip who is 42 years old and has done a lot of research in this area.

    Yes I do, I know many, including an 89 year old that was raised by his father, and his Uncle Jim. He married, had four of his own children, and served in WWII, was a successful businessman, and now lives is a very exclusive retirement home in Auckland. All of his kids are successful and well adjusted people, who have never got into trouble with the law, and just loved their two ‘granddads’.

    I also have a best friend who is 56 and was raised by her mother, and her mother’s ‘friend’, after the marriage broke up. Both her and her brother are lovely people, who work hard and lead fruitful lives, both married to opposite sex partners, and none of their children seem to be displaced individuals either.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Judith (8,460 comments) says:

    The difference being that those children came from those parents, while as in same-sex parenting, only one of the parents is an actual parent.

    O.K. well now you can stop right there. You are now trying to claim that a parent who isn’t a biological parent can never be as good as one that is.

    Your argument has far reaching consequences including adoption, fostering, and so on. What you are saying is that a child can never be happy unless it is bought up by its biological parents, and yet there is a heap of evidence that not only proves you wrong, but that proves in many instances, biological parents can be more harmful than those who aren’t.

    You are really stretching into the area of desperation now.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    I find the notion of trying to determine how “well” adults turned out as a criteria for whether or not whole swathes of people should be able to raise kids at least a little disturbing.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Lucia Maria (2,239 comments) says:

    Judith,

    Funny that you wanted to stop at that one line of mine and go no further to draw your conclusion, when on the very next line I say, “The other is a person that the child is pressured to treat like they would an opposite sex parent, all the while presenting a brave face to the outside world and never being able to talk about their real feelings of loss for the parent they don’t have.” I should add to that, or they have to treat the other person like they are another mother or father, depending on the sex.

    Which is the difference between the two people you know that grew up with same-sex parents and today. Today, there is pressure on children to treat the other same-sex parent as if they are a replacement for an opposite-sex parent. That would not have happened to the two people you know.

    My 16 year is friends with a boy who is being raised by lesbians. He has a brother who is the son of the other woman. Both boys were conceived on purpose from the same man in order to create this new family. My son tells me the boy is quite “different” from every one else and has real issues with the other woman and her son. There is pressure on him to call the other woman his mother, when he knows she is no such thing. It’s a strange situation to grow up in, and I doubt one that any child would actually want, if they had a choice about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Chuck Bird (4,773 comments) says:

    @Judith

    I entered it because you made the statement regarding the fact that they take your blood, and don’t take the blood of homosexual males (which isn’t exactly correct).

    I mentioned myself to show that NZ Blood services accepts blood from heterosexuals but does not accept blood from active homosexuals if you want to be pedantic.

    NZ Blood Services has a policy of excluding high risk groups. The fact that there are other high risk groups do not change the fact that homosexuals are a high risk group.

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

    Lucy, why are you so concerned about other peoples sexual habits ? You are free to stand by your beliefs, which on this topic, are similar to mine. The difference is I do not feel the need to impose my beliefs on others. No amount of tinkering with the law will make me prefer a bloke to you :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Lucia Maria (2,239 comments) says:

    You see any comments about sexual habits from me, Kea?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Redbaiter (8,032 comments) says:

    “The difference is I do not feel the need to impose my beliefs on others.”

    What crap. You and every other prog used deceit, propaganda and the power of big government to impose this change, and its really just another effort to force people to all think like progs think.

    Your claim is arrant nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Judith (8,460 comments) says:

    @ chuck bird

    But that is not what you said, if that was what you meant then you need to be clear about it, rather than picking on posters who do not understand what you didn’t say.

    @ Kea

    So you won’t be getting married today then? Couldn’t find a man that would have you? :P

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    My son tells me the boy is quite “different” from every one else and has real issues with the other woman and her son. There is pressure on him to call the other woman his mother, when he knows she is no such thing. It’s a strange situation to grow up in, and I doubt one that any child would actually want, if they had a choice about it.

    A 16-year-old boy has problems with his parents? One of the signs of the Apocalypse!

    I don’t envy the kid, but I bet he’d be having a better time of it if he didn’t live in a society where people sit around on message boards and discuss him and his parents, all of the stigma kids throw around about LGBT folks, etc.

    I knew a kid who turned out weird at school because of his parents. They were Exclusive Brethren, and he was eventually pulled out of school by those parents. He was forced to sit out of our Bible studies classes while the rest of us normals went along. He tried to hide how weird his family was, putting on a brave face to the outside world.

    It’s a strange situation to grow up in, and I doubt one that any child would actually want, if they had a choice about it.

    You know, unlike all of those kids who would never wish their family was different from the way it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    “It isn’t real marriage.”

    Agree. Its putrid stuff..and its headline news.

    Filthy sodomisers .

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Judith (8,460 comments) says:

    @ Lucia Maria

    I did read your second line and thought that was just as bigger load of rubbish as the first. Whilst I am sure there are some that are pressured into being parents in such conditions, there are also many people who are pressured into being parents in heterosexual relationships, even where the children are their biological children, and struggle with having to put on a brave face pretending they really wanted those children.

    You are making MASSIVE assumptions to try and make your argument fit. In fact all you are highlighting is behaviours typical to a variety of families, including those with heterosexual parents.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Judith (8,460 comments) says:

    @ Ryan

    Excellent post – well said. Reality – objectivity – just what is required in this argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Lucia Maria (2,239 comments) says:

    Ryan,

    Which one of your parents could have done without: your mother or your father?

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

    You see any comments about sexual habits from me, Kea?

    Lucy, not today. But traditional marriage is not effected by this law change. Politicians do not dictate the definition of your Christian marriage. Nor will they dictate what marriage means to me, if I marry again. You do your thing and let the poofs do theirs.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Lucia Maria (2,239 comments) says:

    Judith,

    Whilst I am sure there are some that are pressured into being parents in such conditions, there are also many people who are pressured into being parents in heterosexual relationships, even where the children are their biological children, and struggle with having to put on a brave face pretending they really wanted those children.

    Right, so a child being pressured into accepting an unrelated same-sex parent is just like being pressured into being a parent full stop. Never mind that adults can walk away, and children cannot.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    Ryan,

    Which one of your parents could have done without: your mother or your father?

    I’m not sure I understand the question. Done without?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Redbaiter (8,032 comments) says:

    “But traditional marriage is not effected by this law change.”

    FFS, its true title was “The Marriage Redefinition Act”, even though you and a similar bunch of mindless progs thought it was called “The Marriage Equality Act”.

    In a surprising lurch towards truth, even that bunch of shameless liars and hypocrites who falsely claim to represent us in parliament did not have the gall to engage in that degree of legislative dishonesty. The Act was the Marriage Redefinition Act, yet here you are telling us it had no impact upon traditional marriage. Hopeless.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Lucia Maria (2,239 comments) says:

    Ryan,

    Pretend your mother or your father preferred a same-sex relationship. So, one of your parents disappears and is replaced by another person of the same sex to the parent that is left. So the question is, given that both a mother and a father is not really that important to raise a child, in your mind, which one of your parents do you think you didn’t need when you were growing up?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Judith (8,460 comments) says:

    @ Lucia Maria

    You are being unrealistic. Children are ‘pressured’ into accepting all sorts of parental arrangements that they don’t like. There are some that hate the fact their parents are still together, and feel pressured into accepting a biological parent they don’t want anything to do with.

    I think you are desperately trying to make something fit, that just doesn’t. Children are immature people, they can be ‘bought’ with a bribe, and ‘hate’ by being refused a fizzy drink, you’re suggesting that children should live in your perfect visualisation of the world and anything else is not good enough. The statistics do not support you. Society has always consisted of a variety of family make ups, and there have always been young people who have taken umbrage with their particular family – regardless of how it is constituted. Your argument is an epic failure.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    FFS, its true title was “The Marriage Redefinition Act”, even though you and a similar bunch of mindless progs thought it was called “The Marriage Equality Act”.

    Red, It fits with your authoritarian outlook that you would look to central government to define something like marriage. I do not and nor do many others. The authorities can call it what ever they want. I don’t care. Marriage to me is between a man and a woman. I strongly support the traditional family.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    Pretend your mother or your father preferred a same-sex relationship. So, one of your parents disappears and is replaced by another person of the same sex to the parent that is left. So the question is, given that both a mother and a father is not really that important to raise a child, in your mind, which one of your parents do you think you didn’t need when you were growing up?

    Didn’t need in order to do what?

    I needed both of them precisely as they were for me to turn out precisely as I have done (which is to say, pretty awesome).

    I needed neither of them to survive to adulthood, if someone or someones else were there to raise me.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Judith (8,460 comments) says:

    @ Ryan

    I agree. What Lucia is trying to say is that no parent can provide the nurturing and care and protection that a biological parent can. That is just not true. She is trying to make her argument fit the homosexuality debate, but in doing so, she is criticising all non-biological parents.

    I suppose she would suggest an abused child stays with a parent that beats them, because after all, being with a biological parents is the best way for a child to grow up…. how bloody ridiculous.

    I suppose when a child’s biological parents die, we should just leave them to wither away too should we, because being bought up by someone that isn’t a biological parent is really bad!!! Jeez, some people should get their noise out of the bible and actually sniff the fresh air.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    I didn’t realize that marriage was compulsory or that some people own it, learn something everyday

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Redbaiter (8,032 comments) says:

    “I strongly support the traditional family.”

    You’re a progressive liar.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Lucia Maria (2,239 comments) says:

    You are being unrealistic.

    LOL, from someone is I presume has no problem with redefining reality so that two men or two women can call their relationship a marriage! And I’m being unrealistic??

    Children are ‘pressured’ into accepting all sorts of parental arrangements that they don’t like. There are some that hate the fact their parents are still together, and feel pressured into accepting a biological parent they don’t want anything to do with.

    Nothing is as unnatural as having to accept two same sex parents. Being raised by a single parent is better. Having a step-mother or father is better. Your moral equivalence argument fails on that basis. Sure, there are those who are brought up in “normal” situations who have had a terrible upbringing, but that doesn’t mean that such an upbringing should be then used as a justification for a lowering in standards.

    I think you are desperately trying to make something fit, that just doesn’t.

    No, Judith, there is no desperation. I’m very sure of what makes a good upbringing for children and what makes a bad upbringing. I’ve also been participating in this debate for a number of years and I’m aware of the research and the arguments. So if there’s any desperation to be had, it’s not on my part.

    Children are immature people, they can be ‘bought’ with a bribe, and ‘hate’ by being refused a fizzy drink, you’re suggesting that children should live in your perfect visualisation of the world and anything else is not good enough. The statistics do not support you. Society has always consisted of a variety of family make ups, and there have always been young people who have taken umbrage with their particular family – regardless of how it is constituted. Your argument is an epic failure.

    Except that the research shows that children are safest and do best when brought up by their biological married mother and father. Everything else falls short, no matter the good intentions.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Michael (899 comments) says:

    @Lucia – am I automatically damaged as my mother died when I was a toddler? I didn’t have a maternal figure for quite some time as my paternal grandmother died before I was born, and my maternal grandmother not long after my mother. Or am I more damaged as my dad remarried several years later?

    Frankly, I don’t think I’m damaged at all. But social conservatives seem to know better!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    Except that the research shows that children are safest and do best when brought up by their biological married mother and father. Everything else falls short, no matter the good intentions.

    Again, a terrifying precedent to set. What does “do best” mean?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Lucia Maria (2,239 comments) says:

    On any measure considered advantageous, children of married parents tend to have the advantage. That is what “do best” means.

    For instance: Growing up with married parents is as important as a good education to escaping poverty

    Growing up with married parents vastly increases a child’s prospects of escaping poverty, a study has revealed.

    A stable home was found to raise a child’s chances of escaping the poverty trap by 82 per cent.

    [...]

    When equally well-educated families were compared, marriage increased a child’s chance of living above the poverty line by 75 per cent.Study author Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, a think-tank based in Washington DC, said the U.S. was ‘steadily separating into a two-caste system with marriage and education as the dividing line’

    He wrote in his conclusion of the study: ‘Being married has roughly the same effect in reducing poverty that adding five to six years to a parent’s education has.

    ‘Marriage remains America’s strongest anti-poverty weapon, yet it continues to decline.

    ‘As husbands disappear from the home, poverty and welfare dependence will increase, and children and parents will suffer as a result.

    ‘Since marital decline drives up child poverty and welfare dependence, and since the poor aspire to healthy marriage but lack the norms, understanding, and skills to achieve it, it is reasonable for government to take active steps to strengthen marriage.

    ‘Just as government discourages youth from dropping out of school, it should clearly and forcefully articulate the value of marriage.

    ‘It should provide information that will help people to form and maintain healthy marriages and delay childbearing until they are married and economically stable.’

    He added: ‘Marriage is highly beneficial to children, adults, and society; it needs to be encouraged and strengthened.

    ‘Under current government policies, however, marriage is either ignored or undermined. This needs to change.’

    Legislators in the U.S., however, appear more intent on promoting gay marriage instead of shoring up traditional heterosexual marriage for the benefit of children.

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

    Red, now the law is in place, do you feel:

    1. Less gay ?

    2. More gay ?

    3. No change in perceived gayness ?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Lucia Maria (2,239 comments) says:

    Michael,

    Are you saying you don’t feel you didn’t need your mother growing up?

    My mother lost her father when she was of a similar age to you when you lost your mother, and she would have preferred he was around while she was growing up.

    My father lost his mother during WWII and he never got over her loss.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Lucy @ 1:31, I actually agree with all that, though possibly for different reasons. However I do not think we can blame the homos for societies lack of regard for traditional family. We need to take self responsibility for that and not blame a few gays. It is not their doing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    On any measure considered advantageous, children of married parents tend to have the advantage. That is what “do best” means.

    Okay, Lucia, so let’s say that a think-tank like the Heritage Foundation came out with a study that showed that children of atheists are more likely to escape the poverty trap than theist families. If that was the case, would you argue against theists being allowed to raise children?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull, clever point !

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Fletch (6,151 comments) says:

    Okay, Lucia, so let’s say that a think-tank like the Heritage Foundation came out with a study that showed that children of atheists are more likely to escape the poverty trap than theist families.

    But that isn’t the case. You might just as well argue, ‘let’s say that a think-tank like the Heritage Foundation came out with a study that showed that children of arsonists are more likely to escape the poverty trap than theist families’.

    Would you then argue for more children to be raised by arsonists?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. TheContrarian (1,082 comments) says:

    “yet here you are telling us it had no impact upon traditional marriage”

    Red, please advise what impact this has had on a heterosexual couple wishing to get married or, like me, are already married. I want to know what impact this has had on my marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Harriet (4,616 comments) says:

    The main argument against ‘gay marriage’ is that it is not marriage because marriage, according to Natural Law is the union between a man and a woman. The argument against gay marriage refers to the actual behaviour, not the people. Respect, by this argument, means to care for the community. Marriage, from the perspective of Natural Law protects women and civilises men. It follows that it also provides the best environment for children to be brought up by a father and a mother.

    The argument for gay marriage seeks to advance the individualistic desires the the gay community, whereas the argument against seeks to protect the community.

    I can’t understand why gays would ever think that a social construct is the same as a natural law union. – one procreates naturally and the other doesn’t.

    At best, procreation within a gay relationship is a community project which involves more than 3 people – one of which is ‘outside’ the gay relationship!

    That is DEFINATLY differant to a natural order union.

    Can you explain why on earth gays think that it is equivelent Ryan? :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Harriet (4,616 comments) says:

    “….Red, please advise what impact this has had on a heterosexual couple wishing to get married or, like me, are already married. I want to know what impact this has had on my marriage….”

    If you go to the pub and say “I got Married on the weekend” people won’t know if you are in a hetrosexual relationship or a gay one.

    You have had the most important label that a hetrosexual couple can have – replaced with a different understanding. You now have to explain yourself. Your hetrosexual identity has been taken from you.

    Are you a queer Contrarian? :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Fletch (6,151 comments) says:

    The term “gay marriage” is actually a contradiction in itself, like saying “dry water” or “male sister”.
    It doesn’t make any logical sense in terms of what marriage innately is

    What would happen if a group of us wanted to change the term “homosexuality” to include straight people? It would be similar.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Harriet (4,616 comments) says:

    Gayboys can’t get Married in a Church:

    Holy Matrimony :

    [Middle English, from Old French matrimoine, from Latin mtrimnium, from mter, mtr-, mother; see mter- in Indo-European roots.]

    So where is the ‘mother’ in a gayboy relationship? :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Judith (8,460 comments) says:

    @ Lucia

    No one gets over losing a parent that has been a positive contribution to their life. Many people benefit from losing parents that have had a negative effect on their life.

    Still trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. It won’t work. There are good and bad examples in every type of relationship with children that you can come up with.

    More children are sexually abused in families that live in houses, than those that live in caves. Should we ban families from living in houses? That is about as ridiculous as your argument sounds.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    Fletch,

    No, I wouldn’t, because I don’t think “likelihood of children to escape poverty trap” should be the criteria for whether or not a whole group of people should be prevented by the state from raising children.

    Your argument is seriously that you can’t imagine that scenario well enough to say what it would mean for Lucia’s reasoning?

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

    Red, now the law is in place, do you feel:

    1. Less gay ?

    2. More gay ?

    3. No change in perceived gayness ?

    Red seems to be struggling with my question. Maybe he is confused about his feelings ?

    Take your time buddy you will work it out.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Harriet (4,616 comments) says:

    “……What Lucia is trying to say is that no parent can provide the nurturing and care and protection that a biological parent can. That is just not true. She is trying to make her argument fit the homosexuality debate, but in doing so, she is criticising all non-biological parents….”

    No Judith – what Lucia is saying is that men and women bring different things to parenting. In a male gay relationship the child misses out on half of what could be bought to the childs parenting ‘needs’. The same goes for a leso relationship.

    Unless of course you think that women should be like men? :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. F E Smith (3,315 comments) says:

     I wasn’t going to read this thread, but for some reason I did.  Glad I did, as I saw this from our resident legal history expert:

    AFAIK affirmations are not used in NZ when declaring allegiance to the Crown.

    As eszett correctly pointed out, see s4, Oaths and Declarations Act 1957

    4.    Right to make affirmation instead of oath

    (1) Every person shall be entitled as of right to make his affirmation, instead of taking an oath, in all places and for all purposes where an oath is required by law, and every such affirmation shall be of the same force and effect as an oath.

    (2) Every such affirmation shall be as follows: “I, AB, solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm,” and shall then proceed with the words of the oath prescribed by law, omitting any words of imprecation or calling to witness.

    (3) Every affirmation in writing shall begin, “I, AB, of [specify], solemnly and sincerely affirm”; and the form instead of jurat shall be, “Affirmed at [place, date] before me.”

    Which is game, set, and match for eszett, even if UT doesn’t want to admit it.  The Oath of Allegience can be affirmed.

    And then we have:

     stop calling NZ legislation “law”. There is no good reason to call it law, calling it “rules” is more accurate.

    No, no, that would not be correct.  There is a good reason to call it law, and that is because legislation enacted by the NZ Parliament and signed by the Sovereign or her Governor-General is law in NZ.

    But what I really wanted to point out was that DPF was incorrect when he said

    for those who want to get married, but previously have been unable to.

    All adults have been able to get married under NZ law. They just have been restricted from marrying certain groups of person (siblings, parents, same-gender, etc), those prohibitions are now simply numbering one less.

    Any gay person was perfectly able to marry under NZ law as it previously stood, just not to a person of their own gender!

    Anyway, the law now saying that people of the same gender can now marry, I look forward to the day soon when poly-amorous people can marry all of their loved ones.  After all, isn’t it fair and right that they be allowed to marry whomever they love?  Why should we restrict them to just one spouse if they want to have two or more?  As far as I can see, such a law change is a matter of human rights!  Why wait for an upswell in support?  Surely if it is a human right then we should not need one!!!

    Ok, back to work now…

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Fletch (4,656) Says:
    August 19th, 2013 at 2:05 pm

    What would happen if a group of us wanted to change the term “homosexuality” to include straight people? It would be similar.

    In other words: what would happen if you started calling yourself a homosexual? Try it and find out! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Harriet (4,616 comments) says:

    “….No one gets over losing a parent that has been a positive contribution to their life. Many people benefit from losing parents that have had a negative effect on their life…..”

    FFS Judith.

    That is so far removed from DESIGNING a fatherless or motherless child!

    How else would you define surrogacy Judith – natural?

    Taking children from parents who are deemed ‘too unfit to parent’ and replacing those parents with same sex couples is not as GOOD or EQUAL to replacing the parents with a opposite sex couple.

    Children who have had terrible parents are not the property of LGBT activists!

    They are wards of the State and the State has an OBLIGATION to see that they DEVELOP into UNTROUBLED ADULTS. They are already ‘broken children’ Judith!

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

    Harriet (2,242) Says:
    August 19th, 2013 at 2:04 pm

    If you go to the pub and say “I got Married on the weekend” people won’t know if you are in a hetrosexual relationship or a gay one.

    You have had the most important label that a hetrosexual couple can have – replaced with a different understanding. You now have to explain yourself. Your hetrosexual identity has been taken from you.

    “Who, dear? Me, dear? Gay, dear? No, dear”

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

    Harriet (2,243) Says:
    August 19th, 2013 at 2:24 pm

    No Judith – what Lucia is saying is that men and women bring different things to parenting. In a male gay relationship the child misses out on half of what could be bought to the childs parenting ‘needs’. The same goes for a leso relationship.

    No such thing as a perfect family. No parents are perfect. Take yourself for example: a blithering idiot. But it is a fair assumption that you’ll love them enough to overcome the fact that you have nothing to offer them intellectually.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Harriet (4,616 comments) says:

    F E Smith.

    Julia Gillard took an affirmation when she was sworn in as PM ect.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Harriet (4,616 comments) says:

    Red, now the law is in place, do you feel:

    1. Less gay ?

    2. More gay ?

    3. No change in perceived gayness ?

    4. Less gay tolerant? :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    If you go to the pub and say “I got Married on the weekend” people won’t know if you are in a hetrosexual relationship or a gay one.

    You’re getting ahead of yourself. We can’t even tell yet which race the person you married was!

    “I got Japanese-straight-married on the weekend.”

    There. Whew! Now there’s no confusion.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Harriet (4,616 comments) says:

    “….You’re getting ahead of yourself. We can’t even tell yet which race the person you married was!….”

    You never run out of straw do you Worzel! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    Hey man, who you black-haired-blue-eyed-Scandinavian-straight-marry is your business, not mine.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Griff (7,008 comments) says:

    Is harry it
    1 Gay ?
    2 Really gay ?
    3 Transgender and probably gay as well?
    4 A sick repressed homosexually obsessed weirdo?

    Griff goes with 4 a sick repressed homosexually obsessed weirdo.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Harriet (4,616 comments) says:

    Weihana #

    “…..No such thing as a perfect family. No parents are perfect. Take yourself for example: a blithering idiot. But it is a fair assumption that you’ll love them enough to overcome the fact that you have nothing to offer them intellectually……”

    FFS Weihana ‘love’ is not the only thing that develops a child into an adult.

    And men and women have differant characteristics.

    Those observations arn’t intellectual Weihana – just considerations!

    Worzel Gummidge and Aunt Sally with all their straw! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    FFS Weihana ‘love’ is not the only thing that develops a child into an adult.

    Perhaps you can list the other things, Harriet.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Harriet (4,616 comments) says:

    Is harry it
    1 Gay ?
    2 Really gay ?
    3 Transgender and probably gay as well?
    4 A sick repressed homosexually obsessed weirdo?

    5 Living in Australia and legally allowed to recognise gay relations as unimportant ? :cool:

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

    Red reckons girls are for sissies and is more of mans-man.

    Personally I could never go that way with righteous God inspired hotties like Lucy running around :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Ian McK (237 comments) says:

    Looking at the filth posted by those of homosexual persuasion, it is not hard to see why decent people won’t give them the time of day. I am fortunate, in that I am an employer, and also have a few rentals; I can assure you all, I take great delight in never giving them the opportunity of either.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    Looking at the filth posted by those of homosexual persuasion, it is not hard to see why decent people won’t give them the time of day. I am fortunate, in that I am an employer, and also have a few rentals; I can assure you all, I take great delight in never giving them the opportunity of either.

    No spiders or Visigoths allowed!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. MT_Tinman (3,055 comments) says:

    Ian McK (11) Says:
    August 19th, 2013 at 3:05 pm
    Looking at the filth posted by those of homosexual persuasion, it is not hard to see why decent people won’t give them the time of day. I am fortunate, in that I am an employer, and also have a few rentals

    Gays?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Griff (7,008 comments) says:

    Ian McK
    Decent people dont discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation.

    You are not a “decent person” you are a sick homophobic tosser.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Harriet (4,616 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull# :cool:

    “….FFS Weihana ‘love’ is not the only thing that develops a child into an adult…..Perhaps you can list the other things, Harriet….”

    For a start:

    A reasonable knowledge of the questions about sexuality.

    If 5 gayboys and 5 lesos were the last people on earth, would they have the character to save mankind – could they change to procreate?

    And would they also have a public ‘ceremony’ where they remained in monogomus relationships and recognised as a couple, so that inter-breeding does not take place with other children who may arise from ‘mixed’ relationships between the parents?

    And would these ‘ceromonies’ be seen as the equivelent to what we know as Marriage?

    And if children were not procreated from humans, but were for arguements sake found under cabbage trees and could raise themselves, would humankind ever had such a thing as Marriage?

    Is Marriage a hetrosexual institution based upon ‘natural order sexual relationships’ – or a social costruct to fulfill individualistic desires ?

    Same sex marriage is Gay Mirage Ryan! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    For a start:

    A reasonable knowledge of the questions about sexuality.

    If 5 gayboys and a 5 lesos were the last people on earth, would the have the character to save mankind – could they change to procreate?

    And would they also have a public ‘ceremony’ where they remained in monogomus relationships and recognised as a couple, so that inter-breeding does not take place with other children who may arise from ‘mixed’ relationships between the parents?

    And would these ‘ceromonies’ be seen as the equivelent to what we know as Marriage?

    And if children were not procreated from humans, but were for arguements sake found under cabbage trees and could raise themselves, would humankind ever had such a thing as Marriage?

    Is Marriage a hetrosexual institution based upon ‘natural order sexual relationships’ – or a social costruct to fulfill individualistic desires ?

    Same sex marriage is Gay Mirage Ryan!

    And what else is required for a child to develop into an adult?

    So far we have…

    1. Love.
    2. Ranting.

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

    Harriet (2,249) Says:
    August 19th, 2013 at 3:18 pm

    If 5 gayboys and 5 lesos were the last people on earth…

    What a lovely bedtime story for children.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Harriet (4,616 comments) says:

    And what else is required for a child to develop into an adult?

    So far we have…

    1. Love.
    2. Ranting.

    3. A degree of skepticism is of most importance in today’s upside down and ‘back to front’ world. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    Okay.

    Well, I would say that the key elements are:

    1. Safety/security.
    2. Education.
    3. Love.
    4. Social engagement.
    5. Freedom to play.
    6. Food/water/healthcare/shelter (probably should have been number one…)

    Pretty hard to make a list. But I don’t see anything there that a single parent or same-sex couple couldn’t provide.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Harriet (4,616 comments) says:

    Weihana…….YOU know that gay ‘marriage’ is just a sham to make gays feel accepted!

    Everyone of reasonable intellect knows that! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Harriet (4,616 comments) says:

    So mothers and fathers are completly irrelevent then?

    I wouldn’t think so – according to laws around pregnancy anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    So mothers and fathers are completly irrelevent then?

    I wouldn’t think so – according to laws around pregnancy anyway.

    Mothers and fathers aren’t irrelevant to that list. They’re just not identical to it. Some mothers and fathers don’t provide those things; some non-mothers and non-fathers do provide those things.

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

    The Oath of Allegience can be affirmed.

    Well, if anyone can find a single instance of a NZ judge or MP affirming allegiance rather than swearing an oath then I’ll concede that eszett has a point. F E Smith has a habit of making shit up when he gets stuck for an argument, so I’m not going to hold much hope of his opinion having any basis in reality here.

    No, no, that would not be correct. There is a good reason to call it law, and that is because legislation enacted by the NZ Parliament and signed by the Sovereign or her Governor-General is law in NZ.

    So you’re saying that legislation is law because a “sovereign” says so, right F E Smith?
    But the parliament holds itself to be sovereign, so why should it need the assent of a representative of Elizabeth II?
    Unless of course the assertion of sovereignty is just a whitewash to keep the masses from questioning where law really does come from….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Judith (8,460 comments) says:

    If 5 gayboys and 5 lesos were the last people on earth, would they have the character to save mankind – could they change to procreate?

    Never heard of a turkey baster?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. SGA (959 comments) says:

    UglyTruth at 3:48 pm
    Unless of course the assertion of sovereignty is just a whitewash to keep the masses from questioning where law really does come from….

    The lizard people?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Harriet (4,616 comments) says:

    “…..Mothers and fathers aren’t irrelevant to that list. They’re just not identical to it. Some mothers and fathers don’t provide those things; some non-mothers and non-fathers do provide those things….”

    Firstly Ryan, males and females are fundamentaly different. We know this due to the make up of relationships in society. 30% are not leso. 30% are not gay male. 30% are not hetro.

    Over 90% are hetro.

    The explaination for this is not one of “society is homophobic” but the truth: people are designed to procreate as much as they are designed to breath.

    It is known the realationships between male and female give comfort and support to the female, and the male is civilised by the relationship. The parents both nuture their children in different ways.[Toddlers it is known, crawl towards their fathers and look back towards their mothers for assurance. The father also throws the bay into the air which teaches the baby to trust the father. For a lesbian to throw a baby into the air is different to what her female partner would be doing - saying 'be careful' as hetro mothers do. Lesbians are lesbians because they like females - not because they like male characteristics.] Go on Ryan, tell me you’ve seen all of 2 women in your lifetime throwing children into the air who are in hetro relationships.

    A teenage boy hearing a mothers point of view towards how a teenage girl should be treated is far different to the ‘opinion’ of an effeminate male! The teenage boy also gets to see how his father behaves towards his sister and mother. A teenage boy in a leso unit would not.

    These things are taught to children by living that example.

    The day to day life of a male/female family would be included on that list of yours as ‘life’s lessons’ and they are not the very same lessons on a daily basis, but a variety of lessons taught over the course of 20+yrs if you allow for the children to learn from their parents when they become adults.

    Yes you could say that an effeminate male could civilise another gay male but that is not what people are designed to do – procreate.
    Not all people pro create but nearly all are designed to pro create. The only people who are not designed to are those who have suffered medical conditions.
    Gays have the same fertility rates as hetrosexuals and their private parts are in good working order as much as the general population. Gays therefor are designed to procreate.

    Gays in realtionships are therefor designed NOT to be parents. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Tom Jackson (2,532 comments) says:

    All the animals come out at night – whores, skunk pussies, buggers, queens, fairies, dopers, junkies, sick, venal. Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets

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

    Tom, it sounds like you live in an interesting area ! I am intrigued to hear of these “skunk pussies” tell us more about your experiences with “skunk pussies” :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    Firstly Ryan, males and females are fundamentaly different. We know this due to the make up of relationships in society. 30% are not leso. 30% are not gay male. 30% are not hetro.

    Over 90% are hetro.

    The explaination for this is not one of “society is homophobic” but the truth: people are designed to procreate as much as they are designed to breath.

    We’ve evolved with predominantly heterosexual urges, for obvious reasons, yes.

    It is known

    Let me stop you right there.

    Okay.

    Let’s continue.

    the realationships between male and female give comfort and support to the female, and the male is civilised by the relationship. The parents both nuture their children in different ways.[Toddlers it is known, crawl towards their fathers and look back towards their mothers for assurance. The father also throws the bay into the air which teaches the baby to trust the father. For a lesbian to throw a baby into the air is different to what her female partner would be doing - saying 'be careful' as hetro mothers do. Lesbians are lesbians because they like females - not because they like male characteristics.] Go on Ryan, tell me you’ve seen all of 2 women in your lifetime throwing children into the air who are in hetro relationships.

    I have, but please do not take my responding to this paragraph as any indication that I think it has any relevance at all.

    A teenage boy hearing a mothers point of view towards how a teenage girl should be treated is far different to the ‘opinion’ of an effeminate male! The teenage boy also gets to see how his father behaves towards his sister and mother. A teenage boy in a leso unit would not.

    These things are taught to children by living that example.

    Which of your parents was your role model in how to treat people of minority sexual orientations and gender identities?

    The day to day life of a male/female family would be included on that list of yours as ‘life’s lessons’ and they are not the very same lessons on a daily basis, but a variety of lessons taught over the course of 20+yrs if you allow for the children to learn from their parents when they become adults.

    Yes you could say that an effeminate male could civilise another gay male but that is not what people are designed to do – procreate.
    Not all people pro create but nearly all are designed to pro create. The only people who are not designed to are those who have suffered medical conditions.
    Gays have the same fertility rates as hetrosexuals and their private parts are in good working order as much as the general population. Gays therefor are designed to procreate.

    Women married to sterile men have the same fertility rates as single women. Women married to sterile men therefore are designed to cheat on their husbands. See how that doesn’t work? Your leap from the way some things are to telling people how they should act is unfounded.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. F E Smith (3,315 comments) says:

    F E Smith has a habit of making shit up when he gets stuck for an argument

    That is a baldfaced lie, you just cannot concede the truth when hit in the face with it.

    So you’re saying that legislation is law because a “sovereign” says so, right F E Smith?

    No, I say that it is law because it has been passed by the NZ Parliament and signed either by our Sovereign or her Governor-General.  For “Sovereign” you can also substitute “monarch” or “Queen”.  Perhaps using those latter two words might confuse you less.

    But the parliament holds itself to be sovereign, so why should it need the assent of a representative of Elizabeth II?

    That is merely an evidence of your misunderstanding of constitutional law. Parliament, by defintion, includes the Sovereign of New Zealand.  In that respect, an enactment of the Parliament is by definition incomplete until signed by the Queen or her representative in NZ.

    Unless of course the assertion of sovereignty is just a whitewash to keep the masses from questioning where law really does come from….

    No, the only person confused here is you.

    SGA,

    The lizard people?

    Outstanding!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Harriet (4,616 comments) says:

    “…..Which of your parents was your role model in how to treat people of minority sexual orientations and gender identities?….”

    Both of course. They said not to lie to anyone – and treat them equally. I take it that gays are resonable people Ryan.

    “….Your leap from the way some things are to telling people how they should act is unfounded….”

    I never said how they should behave – I gave examples of how they wouldn’t behave like parents of opposite sex would behave.

    And that behaviour is representitive of a natural order union. Children are not ‘born into’ gay relationships, so gay relationship behaviour is not what could ever be described as ‘reasonable parenting’. That is an absolue truth Ryan.

    That’s not ‘leaping away’ from anything Ryan. It’s called making comparisons, or noteing distinctions and differances.

    Yeah sure, gays could ‘care, love and nuture a child’ a lot better than Nia Glassies mum – but gays have much much higher standards than that – don’t they Ryan – like personal development?

    Parenting is NOT about developing children into the way that gays see society. That’ed be hetrophobic. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Tom Jackson (2,532 comments) says:

    Tom, it sounds like you live in an interesting area ! I am intrigued to hear of these “skunk pussies” tell us more about your experiences with “skunk pussies”

    You talkin’ to me?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    Both of course. They said not to lie to anyone – and treat them equally.

    But a second ago you said you need to see examples of these things to learn how to do them – you need to see a male father behaves towards your sister and mother to learn how to treat them.

    So now you’re saying you don’t need to see examples of things to learn them? A single-parent father or one of two fathers could say, “Don’t lie to anyone. Treat them equally.” and the child would have learned how to treat women, like how you learned how to treat LGBT people?

    Yeah sure, gays could ‘care, love and nuture a child’ a lot better than Nia Glassies mum – but gays have much much higher standards than that – don’t they Ryan – like personal development?

    I don’t understand this sentence/question at all.

    And that behaviour is representitive of a natural order union. Children are not ‘born into’ gay relationships, so gay relationship behaviour is not what could ever be described as ‘reasonable parenting’. That is an absolue truth Ryan.

    And children are not “born into” adoptive families, so adoptive families cannot ever be described as “reasonable parenting”? And children are not “born into” donor or surrogacy IVF families, so infertile/sterile couples cannot ever be described as “reasonable parents”? These are absolute truths also?

    I never said how they should behave – I gave examples of how they wouldn’t behave like parents of opposite sex would behave.

    If you’re not saying that gay couples shouldn’t raise children, what are you saying?

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

    Tom, yes I was talking to you. I want to hear more about “skunk pussies” and all your colourful friends you mentioned.

    “All the animals come out at night – whores, skunk pussies, buggers, queens, fairies, dopers, junkies, sick, venal. Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Tom Jackson (2,532 comments) says:

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Tom Jackson (2,532 comments) says:

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. nasska (10,917 comments) says:

    If you don’t like gay marriage put the blame onto straight people. They’re the ones that keep having gay babies. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    nasska, Dam I wish I thought of that :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Tom Jackson (2,532 comments) says:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Fletch (6,151 comments) says:

    Just saw them on the TV news.
    So wrong…
    And surrounded by all the painted ladies men whatever they are.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    Just saw them on the TV news.
    So wrong…
    And surrounded by all the painted ladies men whatever they are.

    You’re entitled to that opinion, Fletch.

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

    “Tom Jackson (924) Says:
    August 19th, 2013 at 5:50 pm

    Love it !! Watched it last night on sky…classic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Fletch (6,151 comments) says:

    You’re entitled to that opinion, Fletch.

    I am…for now…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. RRM (9,667 comments) says:

    I couldn’t help but notice a small plague of locusts gathering as I got off the train this evening… and all these earthquakes! Maybe the sky is falling after all?

    The local shaman has been informed though so it’s all good. We’re going to sacrifice a virgin Thursday evening down main street by the 4 square. Then our heavenly father, the almighty Hungabunga will be appeased.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Harriet (4,616 comments) says:

    “…..But a second ago you said you need to see examples of these things to learn how to do them – you need to see a male father behaves towards your sister and mother to learn how to treat them….”

    FFS Ryan. Now you’re trying to set me up for a discussion about parenting deaf or blind children. :cool:

    I don’t think that gays would have the stamina to parent in the way that parents of deaf or blind kids do!

    And if they weren’t that selfish, they wouldn’t be designing motherless or fatherless children in the first place then would they Ryan? :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Harriet (4,616 comments) says:

    “…The local shaman has been informed though so it’s all good. We’re going to sacrifice a virgin Thursday evening down main street by the 4 square….”

    Well arsehole……..we won’t be seeing you anywhere near the 4 square then. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. RRM (9,667 comments) says:

    Well arsehole… fap fap fap fap

    Ooh! Testy!

    Had your compulsory gay marriage yet? if not, why not? :cool:

    PS: :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Harriet (4,616 comments) says:

    “…..Yeah sure, gays could ‘care, love and nuture a child’ a lot better than Nia Glassies mum – but gays have much much higher standards than that – don’t they Ryan – like personal development?

    I don’t understand this sentence/question at all…..”

    Well are the kids in gay relationships going to be developed into their full potential…….you know…..parents…grand parents

    or is living in a ‘community project child rearing relationship that involves 3 or more people’ full potential?

    I think full potential is mum dad and the kids as they would then be ‘naturaly satisfied’ – no doubt, or questioning ‘what if?’

    And experiancingliving in that mum/dad/child relationship as children and young adults is very good grounding – as logic would have it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Harriet (4,616 comments) says:

    “…..And children are not “born into” adoptive families, so adoptive families cannot ever be described as “reasonable parenting”?….”

    Of course they can be.

    To the child they are a ‘full reflection’ of the natural family. As close as they can possably get to it.

    Most children can see that it is not an ‘illusion’ Ryan. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    FFS Ryan. Now you’re trying to set me up for a discussion about parenting deaf or blind children. :cool:

    I don’t think that gays would have the stamina to parent in the way that parents of deaf or blind kids do!

    And if they weren’t that selfish, they wouldn’t be designing motherless or fatherless children in the first place then would they Ryan? :cool:

    You said that a male child needs a male father and a female mother in order to learn how to treat women: “A teenage boy hearing a mothers point of view towards how a teenage girl should be treated is far different to the ‘opinion’ of an effeminate male!”

    Then you said that you learned how to treat LGBT people by having your parents tell you. Presumably neither of your parents was gay, so you learned how to treat gay people from someone who was not gay. Was that good enough for you to know how to treat people? And if it was, why couldn’t the child of a gay male parent be taught how to treat women in the same way?

    Well are the kids in gay relationships going to be developed into their full potential…….you know…..parents…grand parents

    or is living in a ‘community project child rearing relationship that involves 3 or more people’ full potential?

    I think full potential is mum dad and the kids as they would then be ‘naturaly satisfied’ – no doubt, or questioning ‘what if?’

    What’s stopping kids of gay couples from becoming parents and grandparents?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    Harriet, you said that love wasn’t enough to raise a child into adulthood.

    I suggested other things that were necessary in addition to love, and pointed out that gay and single couples can provide those things, and straight couples don’t always provide those things.

    Then you said that there were things that can only be taught to children by “living the example”, and mentioned things like how to treat women – saying that there is a difference between being told by a mother how to treat women and being told by a gay father how to treat women.

    I asked if your parents had taught you how to treat LGBT people, and you said they had. I’m assuming you don’t think your parents failed in doing this.

    So I’m asking why your non-LGBT parents can successfully teach you how to treat LGBT people, but you believe that a gay father cannot successfully teach his son how to treat women.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull, The government can change marriage laws but it can not change natural ones. Same sex couples can not have kids because nature says so, not man. I will put my faith in millions of years of evolution ahead of your arguments. I do not accept your comparison with heterosexual couples who are unable to have kids.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Harriet (4,616 comments) says:

    “……I never said how they should behave – I gave examples of how they wouldn’t behave like parents of opposite sex would behave.

    If you’re not saying that gay couples shouldn’t raise children, what are you saying?…”

    I’m saying that they cannot parent in the way that a resonable male female couple can. The child will not learn by experiance what a male female relationship is about. They will have some doubt as adults to what that is about.

    I would also say that they would observe a lot of behaviour that would be of some confusion to them as children.

    Yes, kids see gay relationships from a distance when they are children and have that explained to them. Yes, and some may well spend time in gay households.

    But that is far different to living in a gay relationship as a child, and also having the majority hetrosexual position explained to them after seeing that not just at a distance, but by spending time in their friends homes.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull, The government can change marriage laws but it can not change natural ones. Same sex couples can not have kids because nature says so, not man. I will put my faith in millions of years of evolution ahead of your arguments. I do not accept your comparison with heterosexual couples who are unable to have kids.

    Nature says same-sex couples can’t have kids, so they shouldn’t marry.

    Nature says infertile couples can’t have kids, but you “do not accept my comparison”.

    I do not accept your refusal to address very straightforward logic.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    I’m saying that they cannot parent in the way that a resonable male female couple can. The child will not learn by experiance what a male female relationship is about. They will have some doubt as adults to what that is about.

    I would also say that they would observe a lot of behaviour that would be of some confusion to them as children.

    Yes, kids see gay relationships from a distance when they are children and have that explained to them. Yes, and some may well spend time in gay households.

    But that is far different to living in a gay relationship as a child, and also having the majority hetrosexual position explained to them after seeing that not just at a distance, but by spending time in their friends homes.

    You would deny child-raising to a whole section of society because it’s easier to explain the majority’s heterosexual behaviour to kids raised in a heterosexual couple’s household than it is to explain it to kids raised in a minority same-sex couple’s household.

    Seriously. That’s what’s you’re saying. It’s not just that you think gay guys are a bit icky?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    Between Lucia’s “odds of getting out of the poverty trap”, Harriet’s “it’ll be a bit harder than average to talk about most people’s love lives” and Fletch’s “gay marriage is a contradiction in terms it is it is it is”, you guys have this sewn right up. If it wasn’t for the onslaught of the liberal media, you’d surely have won the battle for sanity and reason.

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

    Ryan Sproull, you better order some more strawmen after that little outburst.

    1. I do say same sex couples can marry.

    2. Same sex couples can not have kids due to natural laws, not my opinion.

    It is not for me to tell adults who they can marry. It is their choice. But it is not for you to place children in gay relationships. It is not natural. That is not to say that gay people would not be good parents and do their best, it is simply to observe nature. I am not anti gay and can see good points on both sides. However, my vote goes with nature, not your clever arguments, when kids are involved.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Harriet (4,616 comments) says:

    “….Then you said that you learned how to treat LGBT people by having your parents tell you. Presumably neither of your parents was gay, so you learned how to treat gay people from someone who was not gay. Was that good enough for you to know how to treat people? And if it was, why couldn’t the child of a gay male parent be taught how to treat women in the same way?….”

    I didn’t bring a gay bloke home Ryan. :cool:

    Kids have doubts when they first go out with the opposite sex, but by seeing and hearing from their parents on what to expect, and how to behave, makes it a lot easier for them.

    96% of the population is hetrosexual – so it is reasonable to expect that the kids in gay families would not get to observe daily what they will one day be LIKELY to be doing.

    There is a wealth of evidence about kids from gay relationships having sex to prove to themselves and others that they ‘arn’t gay’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Harriet (4,616 comments) says:

    “……Ryan Sproull, you better order some more strawmen after that little outburst…..”

    Kea I’ve already referred to Ryan earlier today as Worsal Gummidge – and Weihana as Aunt Sally. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Harriet (4,616 comments) says:

    “……Nature says same-sex couples can’t have kids, so they shouldn’t marry…..Nature says infertile couples can’t have kids, but you “do not accept my comparison”.

    I do not accept your refusal to address very straightforward logic……”

    There’s no logic in that Ryan – let alone straight forward logic. :cool:

    Nature never ‘made it’ that gay couples could have children – any of them – ever.

    Gays are designed or formatted to be together as much as a tree and a fish are. Or a coral reef and an elephant. :cool:

    On the other hand – Nature ‘made it’ by MISTAKE that infertile hetrosexual couples can’t have children. But they ARE designed to be TOGETHER with a fertile or infertile partner of the opposite sex – just as fertile hetrosexual couples are.

    Try again Worsal. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. Harriet (4,616 comments) says:

    “…..You would deny child-raising to a whole section of society….”

    The whitebait tadpole I caught out fishing today is the biggest the world’s ever fucken seen Ryan. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. RRM (9,667 comments) says:

    “It’s not natural” seems like such an odd standard for humans to aspire to, when we make tools, illuminate the night, create books of laws for how everyone should behave, ride around in horseless carriages, etc etc…?!

    Surely what humans have been doing ever since the Mesopotamians founded the first civilisation, is improved on nature and supplemented nature?

    It is not for me to tell adults who they can marry. It is their choice. But it is not for you to place children in gay relationships motor vehicles. It is not natural. That is not to say that gay people motor vehicles would not be good parents means of carrying children around, it is simply to observe nature. I am not anti gay motor vehicles and can see good points on both sides. However, my vote goes with nature, not your clever arguments rear-facing child seats, when kids are involved.

    Remixed ;-)

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

    RRM, yeah I thought of all that when I made that statement. I am not one for sitting on the fence and I come down on the side of a mum and dad. Your point is valid, but sometimes you just have to make a judgment call.

    I was speaking with a minister today about the gay marriage thing and my concern that conservative Christians may be forced to marry same sex couples on anti discrimination grounds. They will claim it as a “right”. But they have the same problem. It is impossible to have a real Christian marriage of the same sex, just as it is impossible to make babies. You can not have it both ways. My minister friend thought about it and reckoned someone will try to force a Christian marriage case within 6 years. I reckoned 18 months.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Tom Jackson (2,532 comments) says:

    On the other hand – Nature ‘made it’ by MISTAKE that infertile hetrosexual couples can’t have children.

    Nature doesn’t “make” anything for any reason. Teleology was slowly dismantled over the past 500 years. It is no longer a credible belief.

    You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Get back to the mediaeval village in which you belong.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. Reg (544 comments) says:

    Gay Marriage is a Joke
    But Gay Adoption is a tragedy

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    F E Smith has a habit of making shit up when he gets stuck for an argument

    That is a baldfaced lie, you just cannot concede the truth when hit in the face with it.

    I’m not lying. Here is the link.
    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/08/police_assn_call_for_teina_pora_inquiry.html/comment-page-1#comment-1182957

    Parliament, by defintion, includes the Sovereign of New Zealand.

    Another one of your custom definitions, F E Smith?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Fletch (6,151 comments) says:

    Nature doesn’t “make” anything for any reason. Teleology was slowly dismantled over the past 500 years. It is no longer a credible belief.

    Try telling that to the environmentalists or conservationists. These people are walking contradictions who probably support gay marriage but would go apeshit if nature or the environment are interrupted in any way that does against, well… what is natural. And gay marriage is about as unnatural as you can get.

    Sure, we have tamed nature in many ways, but that doesn’t mean it is right in each case.

    Just because we can do something, doesn’t mean we should. Things must be filtered through a moral lens.

    I will leave you with a quote from Dr Martin Luther King, Jr.

    How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. Left Right and Centre (2,883 comments) says:

    Nature used to kill off a large percentage of children before they could reach age five too. Of fertile couples. So… that was then.. this is now. It’s the new normal. Human race has done nothing but change. Change is the only true constant. Maybe the haters will get lucky and gay marriage will just go out of fashion? You know how fickle the gays can be, right?

    I wonder when homosexual humans evolved or started from? Has there always been gay humanoids going right back?

    What about bi-sexual people? They can fuck anyone who’ll let them – and have children.

    All the usual suspects eh? Like flies on shit. Like gay folks wanting equality.

    I don’t know why some of these people have such a problem with benders? They bend over for skydaddy… they’re the experts.

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

    “… we have assumed the application of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty in New Zealand—why, is not clear.”

    http://www.parliament.nz/mi-nz/pb/debates/debates/speeches/47HansS_20040524_00000064/cullen-michael-address-to-her-excellency-the-governor-general

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. Left Right and Centre (2,883 comments) says:

    Wedding night….. time to do some serious consumating same-sexing…. church wedding God approved styles…. oh yeah baby, I have got my horn on thinking about two va va voom vanilla virgin princesses deflowering each other – unleash the years of pent up passion with post nuptial fury!! Bring it on scissor sisters!!!!!!! Bride on bride… hello to a hell of a ride…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. Lucia Maria (2,239 comments) says:

    Don’t be gross, LRC.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. thedavincimode (6,590 comments) says:

    This “debate” seems to reflect two different paradigms:

    1) Bloke ramming it up another bloke’s arse. Good hot squishy anal fun fest. Oooh err! Mind those sheets!

    2) People being allowed to live their law-abiding lives the way they want to if they don’t interfere with others.

    What is it about the principle reflected in the second paradigm that prompts a response reflecting the first? It’s a bit like the “mole” scene in Austin Powers: the difference being instead of looking at someone with a mole, those persuaded by the first paradigm look at someone and think about some fiery mano a mano cock action when the object of their abhorrence is quietly minding their own business and is not otherwise engaged in enjoying a pork slider.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. Fletch (6,151 comments) says:

    LRC, so man got this far by taming nature to where we finally are so now we can all get gay married and become extinct because gays can’t procreate. I guess that is evolution for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. Left Right and Centre (2,883 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria 10:25 pm ?? All of my posts are vetted by an on-duty member of the Conservative Party of NZ. You’ll have to take it up with them. They didn’t have a problem and let it through no sweat. Colin Craig actually says that sexual fantasies are a perfectly normal and natural expression of human desire. Especially in an AO timeslot.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. Left Right and Centre (2,883 comments) says:

    Fletch 10:33 pm Fuck Fletch… you’ve converted!! Well done… let’s have a drink together to celebrate. Another brain is set free…. that’s made my evening.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. Left Right and Centre (2,883 comments) says:

    thedavincimode 10:33 pm 3) And the sucking each other off 69er while watching ten other horsehung dudes on the web playing naked twister paradigm

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. F E Smith (3,315 comments) says:

    I’m not lying.

    Yeah, you really are.  Your link to the other thread (which goes to the wrong comment, btw) is just an example of you in your ignorance.  Just because you do not understand something (and you really don’t understand much of what you purport to know a lot about) does not mean that someone else who disagrees with you and shows that you are wrong is lying or making things up. 

    You cannot and should not accuse someone of making something up simply because you are ignorant of actual definitions, customs, usages, and meanings, of words involving law.

    That said, you appear to be invulnerable to any argument on any topic, so I suspect you really are just a complete nutter.

    Parliament, by defintion, includes the Sovereign of New Zealand.

    Another one of your custom definitions, F E Smith?

    Can you not read?  Are you ignorant of the basics of research?  Even Wikipedia, had you bothered to check, tells us that

    The New Zealand Parliament (in Maori: Pāremata Aotearoa) consists of the Queen of New Zealand and the New Zealand House of Representatives.

    Please don’t pretend that your ignorance makes you right.  Indeed, you display all of the stupidity of the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal, you know. This is basic constitutional law that you are getting so very, very wrong, but you just won’t accept it.

    So, let me say it again: You are a liar when you say that I made any definitions up.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. SPC (5,473 comments) says:

    Gotta laugh, Colin Craig says that the will of the majority is paramount in this matter.

    He is right, legislation reflects the popular will, and that is to respect the Human Rights Act and have no discrimination based on marital status and or sexual identity.

    He is just confused as to what the majority opinion is – apparently confusing sign in polls (that are dominated by activists) and random sample polls that more accurately measure public opinion. The latter all showed more for than against same sex marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. SPC (5,473 comments) says:

    As for Ugly Truth and his god of the common law – the deity of WASPS.

    His opinion is premised on the legal position of Alfred the Great – a claim of Judeo-Christian throne inheritance nationalism (in the most extreme form this is Anglo-American Christian Israeli identity religion that makes them the new chosen people). Yet common law marriage preceded him and the church and the Hebrew covenant nation by thousands of years.

    Essentially these imperial WASPS believe in the capture of public common law by their God and have a disdain for democratic government and popular law making – because this is not bowing down to the throne of the law of their god.

    Unsurprisingly these WASPS infer that legislated law is some sort of “Roman” threat to their common law.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. expat (4,048 comments) says:

    DPF must love the traffic that comes from fundie frothing.

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

    I see Ugly still has not read a basic introduction to the NZ legal system and instead chooses to trawl the internet for legal knowledge provided by the Freeman movement. He probably thinks he is clever and original, but challenges to sovereignty are old news and have been around as long as the law has. They provide no challenge to the police or Courts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. thedavincimode (6,590 comments) says:

    Ugly’s truth is out there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. Judith (8,460 comments) says:

    Homosexuality is natural.

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

    Infertility can be caused by either natural or by unnatural causes. Fertility has nothing to do with the ability to be a good parent, if that were the case grandmothers would be horrible creatures.

    Surely there must be something in the bible about not stretching the truth out of desperation to make your story fit?

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

    I’m not lying.

    Yeah, you really are.

    No, I’m not, fuckwit.

    Your link to the other thread (which goes to the wrong comment, btw) is just an example of you in your ignorance.

    Fuck off, F E Smith, it goes to the right post.

    In the post that I linked to, I said: “He said nothing about complete replacement of anything. You made that bit up yourself.”

    This was in relation to when you said: “1. In NZ the criminal law is codified, which means that statutory offences have completely replaced common law offences”

    Codification does not mean what you said, you are simply covering up for NZ’s corrupt judicial system.

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

    I see Ugly still has not read a basic introduction to the NZ legal system and instead chooses to trawl the internet for legal knowledge provided by the Freeman movement.

    Fatuous much, Kea?

    No surprises that an atheist would lie in support of atheistic corruption.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. nickb (3,675 comments) says:

    UglyTruth – failing to accept the UglyTruth since 2009.

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

    UglyTruth – failing to accept the UglyTruth since 2009.

    Just for you, nickb:

    corrupt (v.)
    mid-14c., “contaminate, impair the purity of,” from Latin corruptus, past participle of corrumpere (see corrupt (adj.)). Late 14c. as “pervert the meaning of,” also “putrefy.” Related: Corrupted; corrupting.
    http://etymonline.com/?term=corrupt

    pervert (v.)
    c.1300 (transitive), “to turn someone aside from a right religious belief to a false or erroneous one,” from Old French pervertir “pervert, undo, destroy” (12c.) and directly from Latin pervertere “overthrow, overturn,” figuratively “to corrupt, subvert, abuse,” literally “turn the wrong way, turn about,” from per- “away” (see per) + vertere “to turn” (see versus).
    http://etymonline.com/?term=pervert

    “The whole of the common law is judge made.”
    http://www.pco.parliament.govt.nz/lac-chapter-3

    Alfred … established a code of laws that later became the basis of English Common Law.
    http://www.heritage-history.com/www/heritage.php?Dir=characters&FileName=alfred.php

    The Doom Book, Code of Alfred or Legal Code of Aelfred the Great was the code of laws (“dooms”, laws or judgments) compiled by Alfred the Great (c. 893 AD) from three prior Saxon codes, to which he prefixed the Ten Commandments of Moses and incorporated rules of life from the Mosaic Code and the Christian code of ethics.
    http://stefangillies.wordpress.com/alfred-the-great-legal-code/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. nickb (3,675 comments) says:

    Yes, you have already tried to demonstrate your considerable legal prowess on here. Are you Davina Murray?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    It is not for me to tell adults who they can marry. It is their choice. But it is not for you to place children in gay relationships. It is not natural. That is not to say that gay people would not be good parents and do their best, it is simply to observe nature. I am not anti gay and can see good points on both sides. However, my vote goes with nature, not your clever arguments, when kids are involved.

    Kea, you talk like what is “natural” is firstly plainly obvious, and secondly that it carries with it some kind of moral power.

    You are saying that because same-sex conception does not happen, same-sex adoption should not happen. Yet when your attention is drawn to the fact that infertile-couple conception does not happen (in other words, is not natural, by the definition you have given), you ignore nature and are happy to supply children to these unnatural non-child-producing couples.

    Consider the possibility that the reason you find my arguments “clever” and refuse to address them is because you are, in fact, wrong – or, at least, your reasons for holding the position you do are irrational. (You might be right, but it would be by accident.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    Kea, I do apologise for accusing you of being against same-sex marriage. It’s rare for someone to be in favour of gay marriage and against gay adoption (at least on Kiwiblog comments), and I got you mixed up with the various people who are against both. Sorry about that.

    What you call “natural law” is just the way things happen. It has absolutely no bearing on how people should act.

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

    Ryan Sproull, To tell the truth I am not as worried about same sex adoption as some people are and see your points clearly. But it is my view that it is against the natural order of things. That is not intended as a moral point, simply an observation of nature.

    It is possible that a child could be raised by wolves, wild pigs or monkeys. That is not to say it is desirable and it is clearly not natural. That is why your argument about how people should act is not as strong as you think. It is based on subjective belief, so it can be countered with subjective belief. What is objective reality is the natural order of things that has evolved over millions of years. Homosexuals are a natural, though fairly rare, variation. But nature does not allow them to have kids.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    It is possible that a child could be raised by wolves, wild pigs or monkeys. That is not to say it is desirable and it is clearly not natural. That is why your argument about how people should act is not as strong as you think. It is based on subjective belief, so it can be countered with subjective belief. What is objective reality is the natural order of things that has evolved over millions of years. Homosexuals are a natural, though fairly rare, variation. But nature does not allow them to have kids.

    I agree that my position is based on a subjective morality, and that those who disagree also have a different subjective morality. But it is your subjective belief that our society should base its social/legal structures on how humans have evolved. It is no more objective to say, “We should act in the ways we have evolved to act” than it is to say “We should act in the opposite of the ways we have evolved to act”.

    Which is to say, you’re quite right that when asked, “Why are these things right or wrong to you?”, my answer in the end will be, “They just are.” You are mistaken in thinking that you are immune to the same criticism, unless you can answer the question: “Why should we conform to what you call the natural order of things”?

    Obviously, when you argue about morality, which is inherently subjective, you do end up just having to agree to disagree a lot of the time.

    However, what I have been doing in this thread is not arguing against others’ subjective moralities, but arguing against their logical inconsistencies. I don’t tell Lucia, Fletch and Harriet that they’re incorrect to find homosexuality sinful and wrong – they’re not incorrect, as to them it is sinful and wrong.

    What I do instead is appeal to common values, and one of those is reasoning and consistency. Lucia says kids of different-sex couples are more likely to escape poverty than kids of same-sex couples, therefore same-sex couples should not adopt. But if that was not true, she would still be against same-sex adoption. And if it was true that kids of atheists are more likely than kids of theists to escape poverty (which wouldn’t surprise me, more for correlation than causation reasons), she would not suddenly denounce theist adoption or childbearing.

    So I don’t say to Lucia, “You’re wrong according to my values.” I say, “Your argument makes no sense according to your OWN values.”

    Harriet says that he reckons that explaining love and sex to straight kids being brought up by a gay couple would be difficult and confusing, therefore same-sex couples should not adopt. He says that kids need to see two sexes interacting for their education in how to be adults, therefore same-sex couples should not adopt.

    I don’t tell Harriet, “You’re wrong according to my values.” I say, “But you agree that your parents were able to teach you with their words how to treat kinds of people not in your immediate family, so that can’t be your real problem with same-sex adoption.” I say, “All kinds of things are easier or harder to explain to kids in different families, but you don’t have a problem with different-race adoption.”

    I say, “Your argument doesn’t make sense according to your OWN values.” And they must value consistency and reasoning, because they argue back, trying to justify it, rather than just saying, “Yeah, it doesn’t make sense and I don’t care that it doesn’t make sense.”

    The same with your position. I point out that you’re okay with infertile couples adopting, which is against the natural order, as a demonstration that you don’t even agree with what you’re saying.

    And I don’t know about your case, but it seems clear that in the cases of Lucia, Harriet and Fletch (though I haven’t seen much of it from him in this thread), they are against same-sex adoption because they believe that homosexuality in general is sinful, but they recognise (like I do) that just telling someone you think their morality is wrong doesn’t achieve anything or convince anyone.

    So what they are trying to do is appeal to common values too. I care about kids getting out of poverty, so Lucia makes that argument against same-sex adoption. I care about kids having a hard and confusing time as teenagers, so Harriet makes that argument against same-sex adoption.

    The only real difference between me and them is that the heart of my morality is “let people live however they like as long as they don’t hurt others”, the heart of their morality is Christian belief, and I’m perhaps a bit more willing to admit that – partly because my moral base is fashionable these days, and theirs is less so.

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

    “Why should we conform to what you call the natural order of things”?

    It is what we all observe, not what I call it. We do conform to the natural order of things regardless of our views. You can not fly like a bird, no matter how much you may want to claim it as a right. Some of the others are informed by their Christianity. I do not have that burden. I base my views on evidence. The evidence is same sex couples can not make babies. I trust evolution on this one. There are many subtle things that go on in a growing brain that we do not understand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    It is what we all observe, not what I call it. We do conform to the natural order of things regardless of our views. You can not fly like a bird, no matter how much you may want to claim it as a right. Some of the others are informed by their Christianity. I do not have that burden. I base my views on evidence. The evidence is same sex couples can not make babies. I trust evolution on this one. There are many subtle things that go on in a growing brain that we do not understand.

    But nature does not prevent same-sex adoption. Gravity doesn’t suddenly change, hearts don’t stop, stones don’t start exploding. The way you describe nature is as things that we cannot change. I can’t fly like a bird, but I can fly in a plane – because flying that way is in accordance with nature. Same-sex couples can’t have kids through their own procreation, but they can raise children – because adoption is in accordance with nature.

    The evidence is that while same-sex procreation is not possible (thus far) – prevented by nature – same-sex adoption is possible. It is not prevented by nature.

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

    “It is not prevented by nature.”

    Nor is child molestation, murder or rape. It does not mean those things are desirable. It could also be argued that nature, through evolution, does prevent things like same sex adoption. Natural selection will not select genes from same sex couples.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    Nor is child molestation, murder or rape. It does not mean those things are desirable.

    You didn’t say that flying like a bird or same-sex procreation were undesirable, you said they were impossible. Your definition: “We do conform to the natural order of things regardless of our views.”

    So, either…

    1. Your definition of “natural law” needs to be revised.
    2. There is something different from “natural law” about same-sex adoption, child molestation, murder and rape that makes those things bad in your opinion.

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

    Ryan Sproull, I did give you a hint. Genes will not be selected from gay couples. That is the biggest condemnation nature can give and it has nothing at all to do with my views. I am not having a dig at gays, it is simply a fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull, I did give you a hint. Genes will not be selected from gay couples. That is the biggest condemnation nature can give and it has nothing at all to do with my views. I am not having a dig at gays, it is simply a fact.

    1. Why should child-raising be decided by whether or not genes are passed on?
    2. It is simply a fact that genes will not be selected from infertile couples – are you with nature in condemning them and not allowing them to adopt?
    3. Genes can be passed on in cases of rape. Is that not the biggest approbation nature can give?

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

    1. We evolved that way. Obviously.

    2. Adoption exists in social animals all through nature. It is about carrying on the common genes in the group. Within a social group there will be shared genetic material. I am not aware of many same sex couples adopting in nature.

    3. You are trying to raise a moral point. I have restricted myself to evolution and observation of nature.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    1. Why should we act the way we have evolved?
    2. Why should we act the way animals do in nature?
    3. If you do not see your opposition to same-sex adoption as a moral point, what do you see it as?

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

    1. It depends on whether it gives us an evolutionary advantage.

    2. We are not like animals, we are animals.

    3. A fact of the natural world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    1. Why should we want an evolutionary advantage?
    2. You’re right, we are animals, and since human animals do same-sex adoption, it is natural by your definition.
    3. Human animals do same-sex adopt. It is an observable fact of the natural world – it is observed in Iceland, France, the United Kingdom, and many other places where human animals live.

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

    1. What we want is not relevant in this context. It is about survival of the species. Or more exactly, the genes.

    2. Maybe.

    3. Rape is common in the animal kingdom. How far do you want to go with it ?…

    FFS Ryan I did not make the dam rules ! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. Judith (8,460 comments) says:

    The natural vs socialisation debate is an interesting one.

    Try not scratching when you have an itch, and see how much of the animal is in you.
    No matter how much we try, we cannot completely get rid of the animal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    1. What we want is relevant, because you are saying that, out of the two options of legally recognising and not legally recognising same-sex adoption in New Zealand, we should choose the latter over the former – because you assert doing so will give us an evolutionary advantage. Do you believe that France and Iceland, etc., are going to bring about the destruction of the species?

    2. Maybe?

    3. We’re seeing how far you want to go with it. You did make these rules. I’m not the one saying we should structure our laws based on how we’ve evolved to act, as animals.

    I am enjoying this immensely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    Try not scratching when you have an itch, and see how much of the animal is in you.
    No matter how much we try, we cannot completely get rid of the animal.

    Thing is, as animals, trying to get rid of the animal is also an animal behaviour.

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

    Ryan, no I did not make the rules.

    In terms of what I think personally, I have too many doubts to approve of gay adoptions. That is not to say that gay parents would not do their very best for their kid. But it really does fly in the face of nature to such an extent we can not ignore it. Homosexuality does exist in nature, though it is obviously an evolutionary dead end. I see no harm in what consenting adults do, but adoption introduces a child who does not have consent.

    In summary, you make some strong points, but not strong enough. It is very hard to find any kids to adopt anyway, now we pay women to have them. It is never likely to be a big issue and if a gay couple did adopt I would be reasonably confident things would work out ok. But I have enough reservation to come down on the side of saying no. There are of course gays who have kids already and are now living in same sex relationships. There are two living within 100 meters of me. I will not be picketing them anytime soon, unless Lucy comes with me to show how straight people do things ;)

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

    Thing is, as animals, trying to get rid of the animal is also an animal behaviour.

    Fail.

    So is trying to avoid death. But nature wins that one too. Always.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    I don’t doubt you have… doubts, Kea. It’s just that your “flies in the face of nature” doesn’t hold up in a world where so many other things that fit your definition of unnatural happen without you raising an eyebrow. Hell, you had to change the definition of “natural order” halfway through your explanation.

    As for consent, well, children don’t consent to be born into straight couples either.

    So is trying to avoid death. But nature wins that one too. Always.

    Yes, everything humans do is the behaviour of a human animal, by definition, including trying to avoid death, including committing suicide.

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

    Ryan I am sure kowtow and Red would make fine parents :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    Ryan I am sure kowtow and Red would make fine parents

    It would have the advantage of them not passing on their genes…

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.