General Debate 3 January 2014

January 3rd, 2014 at 8:00 am by Kokila Patel
Tags:

201 Responses to “General Debate 3 January 2014”

  1. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    Here it is : https://twitter.com/Kevin_Church/status/416634143074967552/photo/1

    when I look at this picture, many issues crowd my mind. Some I will not enter into here (military readiness, the on-going degradation of the strength of the US and the results that will have in destabilizing the political structures around the world). The main issue though is this: if this is supposed to be a “marriage,” who is the husband, and who is the wife? I am not talking about dominant/submissive roles. I am talking about husbands and wives. See, words have meanings. Marriage has meaning. To marry, as a verb, has meaning, and hence, that meaning is filled out by the direct object of the verb. I, a man, married a woman. Hence, I am a husband, with all the meaning that term carries, to a specific woman, who is my wife, with all the meaning that term likewise carries. All the public education and eradication of human nature in the world cannot remove from those who are created in the image of God a basic, instinctive understanding that “husband” is a gendered term, “wife” is a gendered term, “father” is a gendered term, and “mother” is the most gendered term known to humanity. Hence, “marriage” has a meaning that this picture can never represent, since there is no husband, and there is no wife, in it. Without a husband, you have no marriage. Without a wife, you have no marriage. You can have relationships of all kinds, but what you do not have is a marriage. All the glazed eyes of judges or the wild eyes of zealots can not change this basic reality. This is why we instinctively show pity and compassion to the child who has lost a father or a mother: we recognize the need for both. This is why we likewise look down upon the abusive parent of either gender, and we do so properly. Shame is a proper and good thing when it is used to curb the evil of men and women. But all of these considerations are irrelevant to the picture above, for there is no father, there is no mother, no husband, no wife, no marriage. Just two men kissing, one in uniform. Their strong feelings for each other can never surmount the insurmountable: they cannot be married anymore than they can bear children, fly, leap over tall buildings, or live under water. They were made one way, and their rejection of their God-ordained roles does not redefine marriage.

    So the sound I hear when I see this picture has nothing to do with abusing the English language through absurd non-terms like “homophobe.” It has nothing to do with advancement in the 21st century. It has everything to do with the sound the citizens of Rome heard in the early 5th century as those they called “barbarians” swept into the Eternal City. Rome had been crumbling from the inside for centuries—much more slowly, I note, than Western Society today, where such processes take place in the span of a few generations rather than centuries (mainly due to our advanced communications technology). Civilizations that fundamentally reject God’s creative purpose collapse, in time. How else could it be? One will either have a culture of life, or a culture of death, and homosexuality, no matter what else is said about it, does not foster life. It is fundamentally self-centered and narcissistic at its core. The profaning of marriage seen in the above graphic has one inevitable result: it cannot produce life. That which does not produce life tends toward death. That is the bent of this society, just as it became the bent of the later centuries of the Roman Empire. And thus we prove yet once again that those who forget the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them.

    —————————————————————

    Here is another very very serious matter.

    The big cheeses at the highest levels are working overtime to destroy our children, as this example clearly demonstrates: “The World Health Organization (WHO) is distributing a document setting the standards for sexual education in Europe, which promotes masturbation, contraception, abortion and homosexuality to infants, young children and adolescents.”

    Consider just part of this: “The ‘Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe’ promote the following:
    From birth to 4 years of age:
    -Informing children about the ‘enjoyment and pleasure when touching one’s own body, early childhood masturbation’.
    -Telling children about ‘the right to explore gender identities’.
    -‘Acceptance of different ways of becoming a child of a family’.
    -‘The awareness that relationships are diverse’.
    From 4 to 6:
    -Children should ‘consolidate their gender identity’.
    -Being informed about ‘different concepts of a family’.
    -Accept ‘diversity’.”
    ———————————————————

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. dog_eat_dog (681 comments) says:

    The more Bible Bashing I read in Gen Dis threads, the more I’m convinced that abortions should be mandatory.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. wat dabney (3,464 comments) says:

    Harriet,

    Enough with your barbaric magic pixie please.

    Not everyone is interested in wallowing in bigoted superstition you know.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. wat dabney (3,464 comments) says:

    About those melting ice caps…

    “December 31 Global Sea Ice Area Was The Largest Ever Recorded”

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/02/december-31-global-sea-ice-area-was-the-largest-ever-recorded/

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Longknives (4,048 comments) says:

    http://www.edmontonexaminer.com/2013/12/31/fake-priest-foiled-trying-to-enter-schumachers-hospital-room

    “The person was escorted off the premises and a rumour circulated that it was in fact a journalist.”

    Fucking hell that’s low….

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. SGA (546 comments) says:

    That’s not Harriet’s own work, by the way, it’s a cut’n’paste from Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona.
    http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/blog/

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Longknives (4,048 comments) says:

    You guys don’t think that teaching four year-olds about ‘Gay Culture’ is just a little over the top??

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    SGA#

    Yeah I just looked you’re right. I only put the link to the photo and not to the commentry. My mistake.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “……You guys don’t think that teaching four year-olds about ‘Gay Culture’ is just a little over the top??…”

    You are talking to NZ’s cultural marxists. Killing ain’t over the top for them Longknives.

    “……I cannot see how the WHO can promote all these sexual proclamations especially Homosexuality and what appears to be the promotion that it to be taught to kids of such a young age. I personally believe that because sexual gratification at such an earlier age is such a powerful aphrodisiac/addiction. The WHO would appear to be promoting its early addiction. How is a child to escape from such a mind bending trap in the age from say five to thirteen and beyond. when they should be enjoying their childhood without such an all consuming and obsessive activity?
    From such an addiction can come disease and even death especially from AIDS. Why then is the W.H.O. involved in such a situation that will exacerbate and spread its cause?……”

    “……It always surprises me the lack of rational thought when it comes to cases like these. On one hand we have the professionals teaching kids EVERYTHING about sex and supposed sexuality issues at an early age, and on the other the shock at young teens and older involved in sexual escapades (which can lead to criminal acts). Sexual diseases, abortion, stigma ect.
    Yet none of the lawmakers with regards to sex education seem to be able to put two and two together……..”

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Andrei (2,431 comments) says:

    Not everyone is interested in wallowing in bigoted superstition you know.

    You never considered that you might be the “bigot”.

    Anyway two men cannot “marry” one another – such a concept is progressive “superstition” and all it shows a culture out of touch with reality.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. wat dabney (3,464 comments) says:

    You guys don’t think that teaching four year-olds about ‘Gay Culture’ is just a little over the top??

    The point is what has that got to do with an evil magic pixie which, according to mythology, advocates the stoning to death of disobedient children.

    Which is worse: inappropriate lessons or the barbaric murder of children?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. dog_eat_dog (681 comments) says:

    But picking and choosing your morality is the cornerstone of most modern beliefs so the answer is probably to embrace the fact that they’re all bollocks.

    I might happen to disagree with it based on what’s appropriate for kids to be learning about at certain ages, but if you dress it up as a means to push your beliefs then I’m just going to disagree with you.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    About those melting ice caps…

    Yes let’s talk about melting ice-caps:

    Measuring changes in Antarctic land ice mass has been a difficult process due to the ice sheet’s massive size and complexity. However, since the 1990s satellites have been launched that allow us to measure those changes. There are three entirely different approaches, and they all agree within their measurement uncertainties. The most recent estimate of land ice change that combines estimates from these three approaches reported , (Shepherd and others 2012) that between 1992 and 2011, the Antarctic Ice Sheets overall lost 1,350,000,000,000 tonnes into the oceans

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Pete George (21,830 comments) says:

    Anyway two men cannot “marry” one another…

    As of 8 am on 19 August 2013 two men can legally marry each other in New Zealand. As much as some may deny that it’s possible, others are proving them wrong by getting married. Simple fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. hj (5,705 comments) says:

    fter a year which broke all Australian records, 2014 is already shaping up as another year of extreme weather, with major cities beginning to feel the heat.

    …..
    “fter” = After and it’s in the ‘erald.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Manolo (12,642 comments) says:

    They don’t want to see it: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-ciandella/2014/01/02/frozen-out-98-stories-ignore-ice-bound-ship-was-global-warming-missi

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. wat dabney (3,464 comments) says:

    Scott,

    One thing you should learn about the whole global warming thing is that you need to look beyond the press release and the headlines.

    No one who has actually looked at the data is sure how they came to their conclusions, which contradict other data and which fly in the face of the vastly increased Antarctic ice extent. It appears to be “adjustments” to the data due to acknowledged errors in the satellite altimetry measurements.

    http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/shepherd-2012—adjusted-antarctic-data-261.php

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/03/why-ice-loss-and-sea-level-measurements-via-satellite-and-the-new-shepard-et-al-paper-are-highly-uncertain-at-the-moment/

    (Note the update at the bottom of that second piece, which shows – using the Shepherd report itself – just how “uncertain” those satellite measurements are. Specifically, laser altimetry readings give an entirely different picture to the reported data set, which is known to be flawed.)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “…..I might happen to disagree with it based on what’s appropriate for kids to be learning about at certain ages, but if you dress it up as a means to push your beliefs then I’m just going to disagree with you…..”

    I’m not pushing anything – just speaking. Here is what CS Lewis has to say about it:

    “The Poison of Subjectivism”. In it he looked at the importance of objective truth and morality in the face of growing relativism and subjectivism.

    “Unless there is some objective standard of good, overarching Germans, Japanese, and ourselves alike whether any of us obey it or no, then of course the Germans are as competent to create their ideology as we are to create ours. If ‘good’ and ‘better’ are terms deriving their sole meaning from the ideology of each people, then of course ideologies themselves cannot be better or worse than one another. Unless the measuring rod is independent of the things measured, we can do no measuring. For the same reason it is useless to compare the moral ideas of one age with those of another: progress and decadence are alike meaningless words.”

    Without objective morality, we have no way of mapping moral progress or regress: “Does a permanent moral standard preclude progress? On the contrary, except on the supposition of a changeless standard, progress is impossible. If good is a fixed point, it is at least possible that we should get nearer and nearer to it; but if the terminus is as mobile as the train, how can the train progress towards it? Our ideas of the good may change, but they cannot change either for the better or the worse if there is no absolute and immutable good to which they can recede. We can go on getting a sum more and more nearly right only if the one perfectly right is ‘stagnant’.”

    Without this fixed moral standard we have no real means by which we can say democracy is superior to fascism: “If ‘good’ means only the local ideology, how can those who invent the local ideology be guided by any idea of good themselves? The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike. Subjectivism about values is eternally incompatible with democracy. We and our rulers are of one kind only so long as we are subject to one law. But if there is no Law of Nature, the ethos of any society is the creation of its rulers, educators and conditioners; and every creator stands above and outside his creation…….”

    Children cannot control themselves around lollies and biscuits, as temptation is still too much after education, and society now thinks that sex should be thrown in with them – in the belief that we are getting closer to ‘good’?

    yeah. right. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. wat dabney (3,464 comments) says:

    Harriet,

    Can we conclude then that, as a supporter of ‘objective morality’, you advocate every law from the Bible?

    Stoning to death of anyone who does the slightest work on the Sabbath?

    (Have you never done any work on the Sabbath?)

    Slavery to become legal, in accorance with biblical teaching?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. J Bloggs (100 comments) says:

    “Objective” morality is an oxymoron. Morality is a social construct, so can never be removed from subjective bias.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “…..Can we conclude then that, as a supporter of ‘objective morality’, you advocate every law from the Bible?…….Stoning to death of anyone who does the slightest work on the Sabbath?…”

    You really need to look around the 21st century Watty. Give up the death culture. Homofacism doesn’t foster life.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. eszett (2,272 comments) says:

    Anyway two men cannot “marry” one another – such a concept is progressive “superstition” and all it shows a culture out of touch with reality.

    Well, Andrei, they can and they do. (And so can two women, btw. Always surprises me that you only ever bring up two men.)

    I guess it shows how much you are out of touch with reality, constantly having to repeat this nonsense of yours.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. dog_eat_dog (681 comments) says:

    Harriet I want to sell my daughter into prostitution. I take it you’re OK with this?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “…..“Objective” morality is an oxymoron. Morality is a social construct, so can never be removed from subjective bias….”

    There is the Law of Nature. A measuring rod.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. dime (8,789 comments) says:

    “Harriet I want to sell my daughter into prostitution.”

    sounds hot.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. eszett (2,272 comments) says:

    Harriet (3,326 comments) says:
    January 3rd, 2014 at 9:41 am
    “…..Can we conclude then that, as a supporter of ‘objective morality’, you advocate every law from the Bible?…….Stoning to death of anyone who does the slightest work on the Sabbath?…”

    You really need to look around the 21st century Watty. Give up the death culture. Homofacism doesn’t foster life.

    Whenever Harry is at loss for an answer (which is quite often the case), he/she tries to change the subject to her most burning obsession.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. dime (8,789 comments) says:

    lol @ john key playing golf with obama in hawaii.

    that will send some of our leftist friends over the edge

    maybe cunliffe will snarl something nasty.. from his herne bay mansion..

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    Harriet

    there must be a beach in Brisbane you can bugger off to for a couple of days, have a swim, relax – log out

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “……Well, Andrei, they can and they do. (And so can two women, btw. Always surprises me that you only ever bring up two men.)

    I guess it shows how much you are out of touch with reality, constantly having to repeat this nonsense of yours…..”

    Marriage isn’t no longer about dominant and submissive roles Ezsett – feminists said so – you now need a proper women and a proper man. The real deal dinky di kind.

    Lesbian & gay relationships are dominant and submissive roles. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    lol @ john key playing golf with obama in hawaii.

    Pretty cool having the POTUS caddy for you though

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    One thing you should learn about the whole global warming thing is that you need to look beyond the press release and the headlines.

    Yeah, I should get my information from Stephen Goddard and Anthony Watts and James Dellingpole who haven’t had their intellects corrupted by being actual scientists.

    Speaking of frauds here’s a funny story that isn’t true:

    “We will not have him put down. Lucky is basically a damn good guide dog,” Ernst Gerber, a dog trainer from Wuppertal told reporters. “He just needs a little brush-up on some elementary skills, that’s all.”

    Gerber admitted to the press conference that Lucky, a German shepherd guide-dog for the blind, had so far been responsible for the deaths of all four of his previous owners. “I admit it’s not an impressive record on paper. He led his first owner in front of a bus, and the second off the end of a pier. He actually pushed his third owner off a railway platform just as the Cologne to Frankfurt express was approaching and he walked his fourth owner into heavy traffic, before abandoning him and running away to safety. But, apart from epileptic fits, he has a lovely temperament. And guide dogs are difficult to train these days.”

    Asked if Lucky’s fifth owner would be told about his previous record, Gerber replied: “No. It would make them nervous, and would make Lucky nervous. And when Lucky gets nervous he’s liable to do something silly.”

    http://www.snopes.com/critters/malice/lucky.asp

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. eszett (2,272 comments) says:

    Is that how you view your own marriage/relationship, Harry? A dominant and submissive role? Which one are you then?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Andrei (2,431 comments) says:

    As of 8 am on 19 August 2013 two men can legally marry each other in New Zealand. As much as some may deny that it’s possible, others are proving them wrong by getting married. Simple fact.

    Oh Pete George, you are so dim.

    Just because the New Zealand Government in an act of hubris passed a law which will issue a bit of paper saying two men (or women) are married to one another don’t make it so.

    You doubt this?

    See my marriage to my female wife is universally recognized where ever we might go in this wicked world. Whereas the “marriage” of the two gentlemen whose picture was posted above will not be acknowledged by the vast majority of the people on this planet. Good luck on applying for a visa to Iran! Most people will actually treat their marriage for what it is – a joke.

    This whole “gay marriage” thing is just a piece of silliness, part of the cultural decay of a dying civilization.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “…..Harriet I want to sell my daughter into prostitution. I take it you’re OK with this?…”

    She’s clearly going to give it away anyway, due to a Father who speaks aloud that he has no morals.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Manolo (12,642 comments) says:

    Here is the link and the photo:
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/9573748/Key-Obama-play-golf-in-Hawaii

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    There is the Law of Nature. A measuring rod.

    Yeah Harry, it’s the survival of the fittest, aka natural selection.

    Glad to see you’ve finally worked out how evolution functions.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. kowtow (6,726 comments) says:

    Andrei

    The “gay” marriage thing is not silly……it’s part of the cultural Marxist agenda.

    Incredible how so called conservatives like Key support it,and how Cameron in Britain actively promotes it.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “….Is that how you view your own marriage/relationship, Harry? A dominant and submissive role? Which one are you then?….”

    I never said or indicated that. I indicated the exact opposite.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Pete George (21,830 comments) says:

    It’s the 21st century Andrei. And since last year issuing a bit of paper saying two men or two women or a man and a woman are married makes it a legal marriage in New Zealand. You may never get used to that reality but I think most people accept it as how things are now and won’t care about it apart from how it may affect them personally.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    January 3rd, 2014 at 10:06 am

    There is the Law of Nature. A measuring rod.

    Yeah Harry, it’s the survival of the fittest, aka natural selection.

    Glad to see you’ve finally worked out how evolution functions.

    ——————————————————-

    Gays clearly haven’t – not the Married ones anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Longknives (4,048 comments) says:

    “Anyway two men cannot “marry” one another ”

    They can and they do…consequences be damned!

    http://www.theage.com.au/national/couple-offered-son-to-paedophiles-20130630-2p5eg.html

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. wat dabney (3,464 comments) says:

    Scott,

    Yeah, I should get my information from Stephen Goddard and Anthony Watts and James Dellingpole who haven’t had their intellects corrupted by being actual scientists.

    You are overlooking the fact that McIntrye, for example, has been proved correct again and again and again.

    Try to understand that the main reason such sceptics have successfully and repeatedly exposed the “actual scientists” (sic) is that most of the debate concerns not scienctic theories as you suppose, but evidence in the form of data collection and analysis.

    The worthless Hockeystick for example – the very totem of global warming alarmists until it was investigated and exposed by McIntyre and McKitrick – was the work of Michael Mann, who himself had confessed “I am not a statistician.”

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Reid (15,594 comments) says:

    To those who are interested in the application of the old testament rules and there are many here who cite them all the time so I’m expecting many will be, there are many references, like this one. Since those of us who actually practice the faith have already considered the question and each in our heart determined our own answer, I suggest those who are genuinely interested take some time to consider it and if you have a view on it, feel free to cite the Biblical reference which support your view. But note that you’ll need to cite more than simply Deuteronomy or other OT verses that baldly state thou shalt do this or that, for that says nothing about whether or not that law still applies and that’s really the question under consideration here, not what the OT law says, but whether or not it applies. Note that this site cites Matthew 5:17–18 which is the usual passage given by people who argue it does still apply, but also note the site also cites Acts 15:29 which defines it. It’s a good example of why the Bible needs to be read in context, and those taking isolated passages out of context and triumphantly proclaiming they mean anything at all are simply demonstrating profound ignorance of what is a very complex library.

    Conclusion: The teachings of Jesus, the Council of Jerusalem, and other New Testament teachings (John 1:16-17, Acts 13:39, Romans 2:25-29, 8:1-4, 1 Corinthians 9:19-21, Galatians 2:15-16, Ephesians 2:15) make it clear that Christians are not required to follow the Old Testament rules about crimes and punishments, warfare, slavery, diet, circumcision, animal sacrifices, feast days, Sabbath observance, ritual cleanness, etc.

    Christians still look to the Old Testament scripture for moral and spiritual guidance (2 Timothy 3:16-17). But when there seems to be a conflict between Old Testament laws and New Testament principles, we must follow the New Testament because it represents the most recent and most perfect revelation from God (Hebrews 8:13, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, Galatians 2:15-20).

    However, freedom from the Old Testament Law is not a license for Christians to relax their moral standards. The moral and ethical teachings of Jesus and His apostles call for even greater self-discipline than those of the Old Testament (Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34, 38-42, 43-48, 7:1-5, 15:18-19, 25:37-40, Mark 7:21-23, 12:28-31, Luke 12:15, 1 Corinthians 13:1-13, Galatians 5:19-21, James 1:27, 2:15-16, 1 John 3:17-19).

    I’m also curious why you’ve turned Harriet’s first post yet again into a religious debate simply because it made some peripheral references to the Bible when it was really discussing a social engineering dynamic. I’m not displeased since discussing the Bible is always worthwhile, but I find it curious many conflate the two, as if they cannot see any distinction.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Keeping Stock (9,791 comments) says:

    The burning question of the day; how many Mulligans did John Key have to let the Leader of the Free World have? And who won the beers?

    http://keepingstock.blogspot.co.nz/2014/01/who-won.html

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. kowtow (6,726 comments) says:

    PG says “……I think most people accept it……”

    We’ll never know.

    These important issues should not be the province of tiny minority radical activists,parliament or the courts.

    This is the 21st century ,we are an advanced democracy…….referendum is the only proper mechanism to decide these issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. eszett (2,272 comments) says:

    See my marriage to my female wife is universally recognized where ever we might go in this wicked world. Whereas the “marriage” of the two gentlemen whose picture was posted above will not be acknowledged by the vast majority of the people on this planet. Good luck on applying for a visa to Iran! Most people will actually treat their marriage for what it is – a joke.

    This whole “gay marriage” thing is just a piece of silliness, part of the cultural decay of a dying civilization.

    Really Andrei? Your marriage is only legit because Iran says it is? Interesting concept.

    What about all the countries that already accept same sex marriage? They don’t count?

    You may think it’s silly, but then again I think you are silly as well, with your intense focus on the wedding vows of two men.
    Especially you thinking it’s the “the cultural decay of a dying civilization”. Utterly ridiculous!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Reid (15,594 comments) says:

    I think most people accept it as how things are now and won’t care about it apart from how it may affect them personally.

    Who cares? Haven’t you understood yet there is profound ignorance amongst the majority of the population on all kinds of things, particularly in social engineering because that dynamic deliberately seeks to operate under the covers? To take another example, if you asked most people if they approve of asset sales, most people would say no. But if you asked any of those people to please explain their reasoning, hardly any of them would be able to provide a cogent economic rational. Instead I would predict most of them would lean toward an emotive rationale to do with not selling family silver, and that would be about the extent of their “wisdom” on the matter.

    This issue has exactly the same dynamics and those who reach for the majority-rules argument as a justification for gay marriage are intellectually-bankrupt braying fools in the same way as are those who reach for the majority-rules argument on asset sales.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “…..Especially you thinking it’s the “the cultural decay of a dying civilization”. Utterly ridiculous!…”

    It’s not ridiculous. Homosexuality doesn’t foster life. Neither does abortion. Neither does death on demand. Selfishness in general doesn’t foster life.

    It’s just about all over for the West, as it took the Romans a couple of hundred years to get to where we have got in just 40yrs!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. RF (1,133 comments) says:

    Fun and games over on the Labour Party rag .. The standard. That fat little guy from Dunedin who calls himself CV has upset the feminists and has been kicked off one site and getting his arse handed to him in others. What a pity as he is one of silent Ts little boys and thought he was going places. Classic crash and burn. Pop corn time.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. eszett (2,272 comments) says:

    This is the 21st century ,we are an advanced democracy…….referendum is the only proper mechanism to decide these issues.

    Nonsense. You are just advocating it, very well knowing it will never happen and knowing very well, a referendum would merely confirm same sex marriage.

    But again, nobody is stopping you to start a CIR. You can lobby Colin Craig to part with his money to finance one. Why don’t you kowtow? Surely, if this is such an important and defining issue, no effort should be spared.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Reid (15,594 comments) says:

    It’s just about all over for the West, as it took the Romans a couple of hundred years to get to where we have got in just 40yrs!

    It’s also interesting isn’t it Harriet how many people are carried away with wilful participation in the decay and corruption these days, just as they were in Roman times.

    History repeats, when you forget it.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    See my marriage to my female wife is universally recognized where ever we might go in this wicked world. Whereas the “marriage” of the two gentlemen whose picture was posted above will not be acknowledged by the vast majority of the people on this planet. Good luck on applying for a visa to Iran! Most people will actually treat their marriage for what it is – a joke.

    This whole “gay marriage” thing is just a piece of silliness, part of the cultural decay of a dying civilization.

    Andrei, if you love Iran so much, why don’t you marry it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    This issue has exactly the same dynamics and those who reach for the majority-rules argument as a justification for gay marriage are intellectually-bankrupt braying fools in the same way as are those who reach for the majority-rules argument on asset sales.

    Liberty and equality are not justified by “majority rules”, and the gay rights movement’s history can hardly be characterised as a majority battling an oppressive minority.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. eszett (2,272 comments) says:

    It’s not ridiculous. Homosexuality doesn’t foster life. Neither does abortion. Neither does death on demand. Selfishness in general doesn’t foster life.

    It’s just about all over for the West, as it took the Romans a couple of hundred years to get to where we have got in just 40yrs!

    Well, the romans didn’t have gay marriage, abortion or death on demand. Selfishness, maybe.
    So you hallucinating the apocalypse is just merely that. Hallucination.

    Marriage in old age doesn’t foster life! Celibacy doesn’t foster life! Oh, the end is nigh!

    Any more stupid platitudes that you would like to have demolished, dearest Harriet?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. doggone7 (493 comments) says:

    Who cares about the cultural decay of dying civilizations and other trivialities like liberty and equality? My Prime Minister got to play golf with the USA President. i will die a happy man!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Pete George (21,830 comments) says:

    Fifty years ago (1964) the world population was about 3.2 billion.

    Since then acceptance of homosexual relationships, same sex marriage, oral contraception, male and female sterilisation and safe abortions have increased substantially.

    The world population this year will be about 7.2 billion people. It is projected to be over 10 billion in another fifty years.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. eszett (2,272 comments) says:

    Longknives (3,604 comments) says:
    January 3rd, 2014 at 10:11 am
    “Anyway two men cannot “marry” one another ”

    They can and they do…consequences be damned!

    By that same token then, longknives, the consequence of catholic priesthood is child molestation.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Keeping Stock (9,791 comments) says:

    @ RF – I see that everyone’s favourite commenter Philip Ure is gracing The Standard with his presence. If ever a bloke needed another reason not to go there, Phil is it :D

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Reid (15,594 comments) says:

    the gay rights movement’s history can hardly be characterised as a majority battling an oppressive minority.

    As I and others have said many times, the gay rights movement is a social engineering meme originating from The Frankfurt School. Their objectives are as follows, how many of these do you see today? BTW, the Frankfurt School went to Berkeley and guess where feminism sprang from? And bear in mind, they’re based in the US, they export their poison to the rest of the western nations, with varying degrees of “success” in each nation.

    1 The creation of racism offences
    2 Continual change to create confusion
    3 The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
    4 The undermining of schools and teachers authority
    5 Huge immigration to destroy identity
    6 The promotion of excessive drinking
    7 Emptying of churches
    8 An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
    9 Dependency on the state or state benefits
    10 Control and dumbing down of media
    11 Encouraging the breakdown of the family

    http://72.52.208.92/~gbpprorg/obama/incogman.net-the-frankfurt-school-conspiracy-to-corrupt.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. eszett (2,272 comments) says:

    Homosexuality doesn’t foster life.

    Gay couples have had more children then catholic priests, btw.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. dog_eat_dog (681 comments) says:

    Harriet, how can I have no morals if the Bible says that selling your daughters as slaves is A-OK? Isn’t that the source of all things moralistic in this world? If anything, you’re immoral for questioning my God-given sense of morality. In fact I think that makes you the anti-Christ, and me some sort of hyper-Christ.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. stephieboy (1,162 comments) says:

    Reid you also should logout and like harriet have a break with your half baked links.!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Reid (15,594 comments) says:

    Since then acceptance of homosexual relationships, same sex marriage, oral contraception, male and female sterilisation and safe abortions have increased substantially.

    Yes. Have you not noticed that in the first world, where homosexuality is vigorously promoted, population growth is either static or dropping, whereas in the third world, where it doesn’t even feature, population growth has exploded.

    But no doubt this demographic trend means nothing to a blindly fanatical idealist who can’t think straight.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Pete George (21,830 comments) says:

    Reid – is it the Frankfurt School that’s behind the brainwashing of the population with chemtrails?

    And can you list all the first world countries with shrinking populations?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    As I and others have said many times, the gay rights movement is a social engineering meme originating from The Frankfurt School.

    I don’t care who first said “don’t be a dick to gay people”. I care that I agree with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Manolo (12,642 comments) says:

    P.G., tell us about your road to Damascus moment? When did you convert to the GLBT cause?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. dog_eat_dog (681 comments) says:

    I’m sure slowing population growth in western countries with accepted gay rights is slowing because of dudes putting their winkies in other dudes, instead of the costs of living and raising a child/housing or something sane like that.

    Nope, definitely the winkie in the butt thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Reid (15,594 comments) says:

    Reid – is it the Frankfurt School that’s behind the brainwashing of the population with chemtrails?

    You’ve been reading this, haven’t you Pete. You’re not very good at it, but that’s no surprise. Keep trying though, maybe by the time you’ve done 40,000 posts here you’ll be a bit better at it. Maybe.

    http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/a-citizens-guide-to-understanding-corporate-media-propaganda-techniques/

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    dog_eat_dog (625 comments) says:
    Harriet, how can I have no morals if the Bible says that selling your daughters as slaves is A-OK? Isn’t that the source of all things moralistic in this world? If anything, you’re immoral for questioning my God-given sense of morality. In fact I think that makes you the anti-Christ, and me some sort of hyper-Christ.

    ————————–

    Reid wrote about the OT and NT @10:13

    It will dispel your confusion.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Reid (15,594 comments) says:

    I’m sure slowing population growth in western countries…

    Social engineering works on many fronts dog. The slowing population growth is tied to porn, feminism of which gay rights is a subset, the destruction of the church and several other dynamics.

    I don’t care who first said “don’t be a dick to gay people”

    So precisely how were gays being discriminated against by not being allowed to use the word: “marriage,” given they had all the other legal rights? (Because “they said they were” isn’t a valid answer.)

    It will dispel your confusion.

    Only if they want it dispelled. Which I don’t think they do.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. dime (8,789 comments) says:

    “See my marriage to my female wife is universally recognized where ever we might go in this wicked world. Whereas the “marriage” of the two gentlemen whose picture was posted above will not be acknowledged by the vast majority of the people on this planet. Good luck on applying for a visa to Iran! Most people will actually treat their marriage for what it is – a joke.”

    Angry Andrei kinda has a point.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    Don’t you find it amusing that when you start talking about the sexual practices of the ‘out and proud’ gay community – that they get all Victorian on you?

    Hetrosexuals on the other hand don’t mind at all if hetrosexual practices are talked about openly. No. Gay Marriages are not the same as normal Marriage.

    And talking about normal – gays are still down one end of the bell curve after gay Marriage. Well that’s not normal!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Pete George (21,830 comments) says:

    P.G., tell us about your road to Damascus moment? When did you convert to the GLBT cause?

    There hasn’t been a “moment”, I was never taught prejudice.

    I’ve always though that everyone should be treated the same and have the same rights and not be discriminated against no matter what their gender, sexuality or race. That seems to me to be a natural view to have.

    When did you have your Road to Damascus moment and become prejudiced?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    So precisely how were gays being discriminated against by not being allowed to use the word: “marriage,” given they had all the other legal rights? (Because “they said they were” isn’t a valid answer.)

    Firstly, Reid, you said “the gay rights movement”, not the recent marriage-equality legislation. In the history of people and governments being dicks to gay people and the gay-rights movement in response to it, you have selected an incredibly minor thing about which to ask.

    Secondly, the State should not be involved in marriage at all.

    Thirdly, if it is going to be involved in marriage, it should do so without discrimination. Calling identical sets of legal rights (not that they were, but let’s pretend that they were) by different names because of a traditional and traditionally religious view on the loving committed relationships of consenting adults is what requires explanation and justification. Explanations and justifications were found lacking. “Because we always have” isn’t a valid answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Manolo (12,642 comments) says:

    A good article by Lindsay Mitchell:
    http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.co.nz/2014/01/who-pays-lions-share-of-income-tax.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Manolo (12,642 comments) says:

    @P.G., that’s because you’re so sensible, so middle-of-the-road, so beige, so perfectly balanced compared to the rest of us, mere mortals.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. dime (8,789 comments) says:

    “Don’t you find it amusing that when you start talking about the sexual practices of the ‘out and proud’ gay community – that they get all Victorian on you?”

    all the gays i know get up to some filthy, filthy stuff. im talking dykes and fags. if you were that way inclined, it sounds like a shit load of fun :D

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Pete George (21,830 comments) says:

    You’re avoiding the question again Manolo. When did you become prejudiced?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “…..I’ve always though that everyone should be treated the same and have the same rights and not be discriminated against no matter what gender, sexuality or race they are. That seems to me to be a natural view to have….”

    Pete you’re completely wrong.

    They weren’t discriminated because of their sexuality. They were of the same sex – which is what PRECLUDED them from getting Married.

    No where ever did the [old]Marriage Act talk of ‘sexuality’. That is why it was re defined – so that any two males or any two females can Marry.

    And as far as I understand the new Marriage laws – NOT having sex within the Marriage does not make it invalid.

    In other words – it is NOT gay Marriage but male/male female/female Marriage. You can be EITHER hetrosexual OR homosexual.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Andrei (2,431 comments) says:

    And can you list all the first world countries with shrinking populations?

    Perhaps not shrinking populations but certainly changing demographics and rapidly changing demographics at that.

    This for example.

    The West is being conquered, not by feat of arms, but by the wombs of the women of the conquerors as the erstwhile population fritter away their lives in mindless hedonism and sodomous bliss

    And you if you say anything……..

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. martinh (836 comments) says:

    So Key is golfing with obama, i wonder what they know little johnny boy will bend over readily on next

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Fletch (5,727 comments) says:

    The IPCC, the so-called official guardians of anything to do with climate change or global warming, have just quietly slashed their warming predictions in the AR5 final draft.

    Unnoticed, the IPCC has slashed its global-warming predictions, implicitly rejecting the models on which it once so heavily and imprudently relied. In the second draft of the Fifth Assessment Report it had broadly agreed with the models that the world will warm by 0.4 to 1.0 Cº from 2016-2035 against 1986-2005. But in the final draft it quietly cut the 30-year projection to 0.3-0.7 Cº, saying the warming is more likely to be at the lower end of the range [equivalent to about 0.4 Cº over 30 years]. If that rate continued till 2100, global warming this century could be as little as 1.3 Cº.


    The IPCC says:

    “Overall, in the absence of major volcanic eruptions – which would cause significant but temporary cooling – and, assuming no significant future long term changes in solar irradiance, it is likely (>66% probability) that the GMST [global mean surface temperature] anomaly for the period 2016–2035, relative to the reference period of 1986–2005, will be in the range 0.3°C–0.7°C (expert assessment, to one significant figure; medium confidence).” (IPCC, 2013, p. 11-52).

    Wait, so by the year 2100, we could have in increase by 1.3 degrees C? Um, so?
    And this is the official IPCC report.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. dime (8,789 comments) says:

    “You’re avoiding the question again Manolo. When did you become prejudiced?”

    who gets to decide when someone is prejudiced?

    i bet the fag community is stoked to have PG defending them… worked so well for dung

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. MH (558 comments) says:

    Obama probably taking the opportunity to tell Key that any attempt to forcibly repatriate Maori to their turangawaewae in Maui and other islands around Hawaii will be opposed by the local indigenous pop.They don’t mind the odd ceremonial canoe turning up but no more. Apparently Hone has preceded him. Also Obama wants to know how his shares in Mighty River and Genesis Power and Whanau Ora were doing, the need to procure an icebreaker and on everyone’s lisps Gay marriage.In return Key has Dotcom for exchange. Fore !!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. dog_eat_dog (681 comments) says:

    You’re generally prejudiced when you start hating a bunch of people for no reason other than ‘God says I should’ or you can’t come up with a good reason for doing so. It’s a pretty good indicator you’re just an asshole.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Pete George (21,830 comments) says:

    If that rate continued till 2100, global warming this century could be as little as 1.3 Cº.

    Except that it would be stupid to assume the rate might continue. It is at least as likely to change, especially if a natural cooling period ends and anthropogenic warming adds on top of natural warming.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Longknives (4,048 comments) says:

    “all the gays i know get up to some filthy, filthy stuff. ”

    Agreed- This Holier than Thou ‘we are just the same as Heterosexual couples’ angle they took while pushing Gay Marriage on us is utter bullshit.
    Gay men are rampantly promiscuous and lead a lifestyle that would put even Dime to shame…

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. dime (8,789 comments) says:

    Longknives – not just say men. The chicks are downright filthy. Well, the gay chicks i know anyway. lots of group sex etc. fun stuff :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Manolo (12,642 comments) says:

    Except that it would be stupid to assume the rate might continue. It is at least as likely to change, especially if a natural cooling period ends and anthropogenic warming adds on top of natural warming.

    I wasn’t aware AGW was UnitedFuture’s policy. Has Dunne instructed his few slaves to support the IPCC?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Pete George (21,830 comments) says:

    I don’t know Manolo, you’ll have to ask them. I’ve been debating climate change since I joined Kiwiblog.

    You’ve avoided that question (at 11:18 am) again. Do you need some time to think about it? Or are you waiting for guidance from Colin?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Reid (15,594 comments) says:

    Explanations and justifications were found lacking.

    Ryan, labels are incredibly important in social engineering because a label contains a social context and attaches emotive values to it. In this sense a social engineering label behaves precisely as a brand does in the commercial world. If you have doubts about this then observe that all propaganda uses carefully selected language and then attaches emotive images to the word(s). This binds values and emotions to the mere word which then becomes a vehicle for the values and emotion that has been bound to it.

    This is why for example oil companies promote for example travel freedom when advertising petrol because that’s a lot more emotive than advertising an orange liquid going into the tank.

    Marriage connotes family, to most people in society. It’s one and the same thing. “Marry and settle down” for example is a phrase used all over the western world. This connotation is what the social engineers are aiming at changing by associating the marriage brand with gays, whose relationship is not based on family but based on sex.

    And despite what people like Pete hallucinate, it’s not aimed at those currently married, it’s aimed at those not yet born, who grow up in a society where marriage means temporary relationships founded not around the children but around the sexual preferences of those who look after them, relationships with no stability and no permanence. And they evil ones are aiming to make this the “typical” “family.”

    There’s a growing number of people who are waking up to this, but it’s still a tiny fraction because most people don’t even understand politics let alone social engineering, and most remain permanently blinded by the discwimination meme that always disguises politically correct social change. And it is a meme, because they already had all the rights.

    These positions previously have all been voiced in great detail during the gay marriage debates, including by you, if I correctly recall, so what’s the point in repeating. You just wait and see what unfolds for your grandchildren but by then of course, it will all be too late, for them.

    And I supported the removal of the legal discrimination we used to have, but I’ve never seen the marriage label as discrimination so I never supported that and I never will. As I say, it’s a shame most people don’t understand social engineering but then, even intelligent people like yourself can be fooled some of the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. dime (8,789 comments) says:

    Were Glory Holes a straight mans invention? I suspect they werent..

    I know this gay dude in oz who went to one. he said it was fantastic, until he left at the same time as the guy behind the wall. some 70 year old homeless looking guy! doh!

    *originally posted in the bloomberg thread lol

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. dime (8,789 comments) says:

    I love how people get uppity about gay rights

    “youre prejudice!!!”

    as they slag off religious people non stop. no prejudice there. nup. its OK! cause they believe in the “sky fairy”

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Manolo (12,642 comments) says:

    until he left at the same time as the guy behind the wall. some 70 year old homeless looking guy! doh!

    @dime: Are you implying looks matter? What about beer goggles? :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. dog_eat_dog (681 comments) says:

    I have no problem with people who follow a religion, it’s when they start using it as a license to be an asshole that you call them out. If you want to judge other people’s lifestyles according to your imaginary friends then be prepared for other people to judge yours.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Ryan, labels are incredibly important in social engineering because a label contains a social context and attaches emotive values to it.

    For example, your continued labelling of a movement towards equality and liberty as “social engineering”, with the assumption of negative connotations. It could just as accurately be called a “civil rights movement”, but that would bring with it positive connotations you may prefer to avoid.

    In this sense a social engineering label behaves precisely as a brand does in the commercial world. If you have doubts about this then observe that all propaganda uses carefully selected language and then attaches emotive images to the word(s). This binds the motion to the mere word which then becomes a vehicle for the emotion that has been bound to it.

    This is why for example oil companies promote for example travel freedom when advertising petrol because that’s a lot more emotive than advertising an orange liquid going into the tank.

    Marriage connotes family, to most people in society. It’s one and the same thing. “Marry and settle down” for example is a phrase used all over the western world. This connotation is what the social engineers are aiming at changing by associating the marriage brand with gays, whose relationship is not based on family but based on sex.

    Based on love, Reid. Based on committed love. Sex and procreation are both secondary to love in marriage. There are loving childless marriages. There are probably loving sexless marriages. But there is no marriage without committed love.

    And despite what people like Pete hallucinate, it’s not aimed at those currently married, it’s aimed at those not yet born, who grow up in a society where marriage means temporary relationships founded not around the children but around the sexual preferences of those who look after them, relationships with no stability and no permanence. And they evil ones are aiming to make this the “typical” “family.”

    Founded on the love of the people involved. Not sexual preference. Love.

    There’s a growing number of people who are waking up to this, but it’s still a tiny fraction because most people don’t even understand politics let alone social engineering, and most remain permanently blinded by the discwimination meme that always disguises politically correct social change. And it is a meme, because they already had all the rights.

    These positions previously have all been voiced in great detail during the gay marriage debates, including by you, if I correctly recall, so what’s the point in repeating. You just wait and see what unfolds for your grandchildren but by then of course, it will all be too late, for them.

    And I supported the removal of the legal discrimination we used to have, but I’ve never seen the marriage label as discrimination so I never supported that and I never will. As I say, it’s a shame most people don’t understand social engineering but then, even intelligent people like yourself can be fooled some of the time.

    Yes, I am familiar with my own capacity for being fooled.

    If you lived in a country whose government had a special word for your less common kind of marriage, when in living memory that same government had previously punished your less common kind of consensual sex as a crime, the discriminatory nature of the labelling would probably be more apparent to you.

    But we have hit upon the heart of the difference here. You think marriage is essentially about sex and children, with committed love as a secondary but non-essential element. I think marriage is essentially about committed love, with sex and children as secondary but non-essential elements. While neither of us are right or wrong, my view is shared by an increasing number of people.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. dime (8,789 comments) says:

    dog eat dog – the shit i see directed at religious people blows my mind. if it were any other group there would be hell to pay.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Fletch (5,727 comments) says:

    I have no problem with people who follow a religion, it’s when they start using it as a license to be an asshole that you call them out.

    By that, you mean by defending traditional Judeo/Christian values that have kept Western society flourishing, lo, these many years.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Reid (15,594 comments) says:

    While neither of us are right or wrong, my view is shared by an increasing number of people.

    Perhaps this is aposite:

    “Lenin put it another way, often saying that capitalist dupes “will
    sell us the rope with which to hang them.” He called them “the useful
    idiots.”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Manolo (12,642 comments) says:

    Mother Teresa (of Calcutta) to right this wrong: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11180656

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Manolo (12,642 comments) says:

    End of the year love Muslim-style: http://news.msn.co.nz/worldnews/8778436/deadly-blasts-hit-mogadishu-hotel

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Pete George (21,830 comments) says:

    Reid, if you want a special type of marriage that differentiates it from a normal marriage you could call your marriage something different. You could have a special sort of ceremony – you could even used Lenin quotes in your ceremony if you liked.

    Would that provide sufficient superiority?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Fletch (5,727 comments) says:

    I think marriage is essentially about committed love, with sex and children as secondary but non-essential elements.

    Marriage, love, sex and children cannot be separated. During Catholic marriage vows, the priest asks the couple if they will be open to any children (Can. 1101 §2). It is part of their vows and a duty of Christian marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Lucia Maria (1,994 comments) says:

    Ryan,

    You hold to the revisionist view of marriage, which is a pretty recent invention compared to what marriage has generally been understood to be for centuries. Here’s an explanation of the two competing views:

    Conjugal View: Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together. The spouses seal (consummate) and renew their union by conjugal acts – acts that constitute the behavioral part of the process of reproduction, thus uniting them as a reproductive unit. Marriage is valuable in itself, but its inherent orientation to the bearing and rearing of children contributes to its distinctive structure, including norms of monogamy and fidelity. This link to the welfare of children also helps explain why marriage is important to the common good and why the state should recognize and regulate it.

    Revisionist View: Marriage is the union of two people (whether of the same sex or of opposite sexes) who commit to romantically loving and caring for each other and to sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life. It is essentially a union of hearts and minds, enhanced by whatever forms of sexual intimacy both partners find agreeable. The state should recognize and regulate marriage because it has an interest in stable romantic partnerships and in the concrete needs of spouses and any children they may choose to rear.

    link: What is Marriage?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Pete George (21,830 comments) says:

    Fletch, are any married Catholics who don’t have children kicked out of the church?

    It seems more than a bit odd that a church that puts so much emphasis on having children insists that priest and nuns never have any.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Perhaps this is aposite:

    “Lenin put it another way, often saying that capitalist dupes “will sell us the rope with which to hang them.” He called them “the useful
    idiots.”

    Your emotive use of social-engineering memes are failing to make a point, Reid.

    You talked about gay rights as “majority rules” because so many people support liberty and equality for gay people now. I pointed out that the history of gay rights is one of minority, not majority.

    You then said that the gay-rights movement came out of the Frankfurt School, as if the origin of an argument is enough to dismiss it. It is not. The argument for equality and liberty stands on its own virtues. Telling me that I have been fooled by social engineering is not addressing the argument for equality and liberty.

    The closest you’ve come to a relevant argument is the claim that marriage is by definition about sex and procreation. I disagree, but then I also think that cultural institutions change over time. You may believe that some such things are immutable – that marriage is about sex and procreation in the same way as water is about hydrogen and oxygen.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. J Bloggs (100 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria – you mean what marriage has been understood to be for centuries by one specific sect of one religious belief system, as opposed to a universably applicable definition suitable for a pluralistic, secular modern society.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    You hold to the revisionist view of marriage, which is a pretty recent invention compared to what marriage has generally been understood to be for centuries. Here’s an explanation of the two competing views:

    Exactly so, Lucia, though I would not use the term “revisionist”, which implies there’s some true history that’s being rewritten. It’s more a recognition that marriage has changed over time long before the “romantic committed love” definition became prevalent. For example, someone in Biblical times or many countries today might consider your non-polygamous definition of marriage to be revisionist.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Marriage, love, sex and children cannot be separated. During Catholic marriage vows, the priest asks the couple if they will be open to any children (Can. 1101 §2). It is part of their vows and a duty of Christian marriage.

    Fletch, democracies aren’t Catholic.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. SGA (546 comments) says:

    Fletch at 12:21 pm

    Marriage, love, sex and children cannot be separated. During Catholic marriage vows, the priest asks the couple if they will be open to any children (Can. 1101 §2). It is part of their vows and a duty of Christian marriage.

    I’m single, but it’s unlikely that I’d want to start raising children again (haven’t finished with the latest batch). Depending of the age of a prospective partner, it might not even be possible. Is marriage out of bounds for me?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Lucia Maria (1,994 comments) says:

    Ryan,

    For example, someone in Biblical times might consider your non-polygamous definition of marriage to be revisionist.

    True, they could. Or they might say, damn, that’s why I shouldn’t have multiple wives, it just never works out well! And those people always had the example of Adam, who only married to Eve. Even Jesus reorients marriage to be one man, one woman, without possibility of divorce, as it was in the beginning.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    True, they could. Or they might say, damn, that’s why I shouldn’t have multiple wives, it just never works out well! And those people always had the example of Adam, who only married to Eve. Even Jesus reorients marriage to be one man, one woman, without possibility of divorce, as it was in the beginning.

    Yeah, Lucia, we’re not going to make decisions about civil rights on the basis of the creation myths of a tribe of desert nomads 5000 years ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Pete George (21,830 comments) says:

    Like the human race, marriage has evolved over the ages and varies widely.

    “Traditional marriage” has changed significantly over the ages. From Changing Notions of Traditional Marriage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    That is not dissimilar to New Zealand – that sort of court attitude lingered through most of last century, and some attitudes like it linger on still amongst a minority.

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

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

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

    Changing Notions of Traditional Marriage

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Lucia Maria (1,994 comments) says:

    No, Ryan,

    Ultimately we need to make decisions based the fact that men and women together create children, and men need some sort of societal mechanism to bind them to their children, and limit their potential rampant promiscuity.

    Marriage between one man and one woman creates functional, stable societies – what’s happening now is tearing them apart.

    That view just happens to match what you consider a creation myth.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Reid (15,594 comments) says:

    Would that provide sufficient superiority?

    Your problem Pete is you’re so profoundly dim that even when you’re trying to be humorously sarcastic, you completely miss the point.

    The closest you’ve come to a relevant argument is the claim that marriage is by definition about sex and procreation.

    No I said it was about family and that connotes a lot more than mere sex and procreation which is like pretending the word life connotes a bunch of cells and a given timeframe. And it’s not my definition, it’s society’s. And it’s a self-evident truth, disguised only to those who don’t want to look at it and those people come into two categories: the seriously deluded (e.g. Pete) and the truly disingenuous. There isn’t any third.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Pete George (21,830 comments) says:

    And it’s not my definition, it’s society’s.

    No it’s not. You, Fletch and Lucia have all claimed different definitions of marriage here. That’s just in one small blog community.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    No, Ryan,

    Ultimately we need to make decisions based the fact that men and women together create children, and men need some sort of societal mechanism to bind them to their children, and limit their potential rampant promiscuity.

    Marriage between one man and one woman creates functional, stable societies – what’s happening now is tearing them apart.

    That view just happens to match what you consider a creation myth.

    It’ll match your creation myth when the perfect monogamous heterosexual marriage produces siblings who murder each other. Not the best model for family bliss.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Reid (15,594 comments) says:

    No it’s not. You, Fletch and Lucia have all claimed different definitions of marriage here. That’s just in one small blog community.

    From me: “No I said it was about family and that connotes a lot more than mere sex and procreation”

    From Lucia:

    Conjugal View: Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together. The spouses seal (consummate) and renew their union by conjugal acts – acts that constitute the behavioral part of the process of reproduction, thus uniting them as a reproductive unit. Marriage is valuable in itself, but its inherent orientation to the bearing and rearing of children contributes to its distinctive structure, including norms of monogamy and fidelity. This link to the welfare of children also helps explain why marriage is important to the common good and why the state should recognize and regulate it.

    From Fletch:

    I think marriage is essentially about committed love, with sex and children as secondary but non-essential elements.

    Marriage, love, sex and children cannot be separated.

    See? I told you Pete. You should get that delusion seen to before you hurt yourself.

    It’ll match your creation myth when the perfect monogamous heterosexual marriage produces siblings who murder each other. Not the best model for family bliss.

    Normally a ‘model’ is the typical unit across all examples, rather than an aberration. Unless someone is being wilfully or ignorantly disingenuous.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Lucia, your suggestion that the State legislates and/or advocates a particular kind of family arrangement to impose a particular kind of functional stability in society terrifies me.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Fletch (5,727 comments) says:

    Fletch, are any married Catholics who don’t have children kicked out of the church?

    Not kicked out of Church, but if (for instance) one or both of the couple decide that they definitely never want children then the marriage is said to not really be authentic. I have known of a couple who married, only later for the wife to tell the husband that she never ever wanted to have kids. He didn’t know this until after the marriage. Later on they split up, and the Church granted an annulment, because the Church considered that the marriage was not authentic or legal, being that one of the partners was never open to having children.

    The Church does not mind couples practising natural family planning – spacing children out, etc- but artificial contraception is a no-no.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. kowtow (6,726 comments) says:

    Ryan S

    …siblings who murder each other….

    The Hebrews covered that a long time ago in Genesis…..Cain and Abel……the Good Book teaches a lot of very ancient values,values that up till now most in the west shared…..

    ….but the cultural Marxists are doing a good job of creating division and hatred ,in the name of equality of course.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Pete George (21,830 comments) says:

    Reid – you’ve omitted Lucia’s other definition and your definition.

    It’s cute being called deluded by you :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Fletch (5,727 comments) says:

    I think marriage is essentially about committed love, with sex and children as secondary but non-essential elements.

    Just to be clear, the above quote is not from me. I was quoting Ryan.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Ryan S

    …siblings who murder each other….

    The Hebrews covered that a long time ago in Genesis…..Cain and Abel……

    Yes, that was my point. I’m not sure that the first family to raise a murderer is the model of perfect marriage we necessarily want to aspire to.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Reid (15,594 comments) says:

    Lucia, your suggestion that the State legislates and/or advocates a particular kind of family arrangement to impose a particular kind of functional stability in society terrifies me.

    You mean the institution of marriage had you terrified until 2012? Are you sure you’re being disingenuous because I’m beginning to wonder if you’re not in Pete’s category.

    Just to be clear, the above quote is not from me. I was quoting Ryan.

    Yes that’s why I italicised it.

    Reid – you’ve omitted Lucia’s other definition and your definition.

    Pray cite them Pete.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Fletch (5,727 comments) says:

    No it’s not. You, Fletch and Lucia have all claimed different definitions of marriage here. That’s just in one small blog community.

    Where?
    Both on the same page from what I can see.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Normally a ‘model’ is the typical unit across all examples, rather than an aberration. Unless someone is being wilfully or ignorantly disingenuous.

    I was responding to Lucia’s use of Adam and Eve as the original family upon which we should base our own. Was “model” not the right word? Template or archetype, then. I’m sure you saw the point I was making, unless you’re being intentionally blah blah insert smarmy insult here.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    You mean the institution of marriage had you terrified until 2012? Are you sure you’re being disingenuous because I’m beginning to wonder if you’re not in Pete’s category.

    No, I’m quite honest in my objection to the State telling people how to arrange their personal lives. Social engineering, like what Lucia is advocating, is terrifying. She wants the State to tell people to have heterosexual monogamous marriages. What’s next? Telling us which religion to follow? What kind of art to make?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Pete George (21,830 comments) says:

    Later on they split up, and the Church granted an annulment, because the Church considered that the marriage was not authentic or legal, being that one of the partners was never open to having children.

    The marriage was legal. The church doesn’t get to decide which marriages are legal and which aren’t.

    but artificial contraception is a no-no.

    There must be a lot of “not authentic” Catholic marriages then?

    The average age of first marriage in predominately Catholic countries like Italy and Irelend is 31-34. I suspect there may be a quite a few not authentic batchelorhoods and spinsterhoods.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Manolo (12,642 comments) says:

    @Fletch: Why do you bother? Dunedin’s Oracle is never wrong and, if so, will never admit it.
    He’s the sole owner of the truth. His solid convictions and firm principles say so.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Reid (15,594 comments) says:

    I was responding to Lucia’s use of Adam and Eve as the original family upon which we should base our own.

    Lucia’s post in full:

    True, they could. Or they might say, damn, that’s why I shouldn’t have multiple wives, it just never works out well! And those people always had the example of Adam, who only married to Eve. Even Jesus reorients marriage to be one man, one woman, without possibility of divorce, as it was in the beginning.

    So even though it’s clear Lucia was referring to the monogamous permanent aspect of that first marriage, both you and Pete extrapolate that out to proclaim she was referring to an entire definition, notwithstanding she then made another post which expanded on the specific aspect she was discussing?

    Disingenuous, isn’t it. I think you’ve established which category you’re in Ryan. And I’m guessing Pete still doesn’t get it, which confirms my original estimate of his category too. Well done guys. Try some honesty next time.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Lucia Maria (1,994 comments) says:

    Pete doesn’t like my more religious definition of marriage, which many people fail to live up to.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    So even though it’s clear Lucia was referring to the monogamous permanent aspect of that first marriage, both you and Pete extrapolate that out to proclaim she was referring to an entire definition, notwithstanding she then made another post which expanded on the specific aspect she was discussing?

    Disingenuous, isn’t it. I think you’ve established which category you’re in Ryan. And I’m guessing Pete still doesn’t get it, which confirms my original estimate of his category too. Well done guys. Try some honesty next time.

    Hmm. Fair enough.

    I apologise, Lucia. I should have stayed focused on my point, which was that we can’t base a democracy’s laws on one particular religion’s creation myths, rather than taking a cheap shot on the Cain and Abel thing. I was going for the funny.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Pete George (21,830 comments) says:

    I haven’t said anything about your definitions Lucia, so that’s a bit naughty claiming I don’t like it. I actually think it sounds fine, for some people it should be an excellent definition.

    Of course it won’t suit everyone. For example in my second marriage there was no intent and little possibility of having children. However we have a stable relationship that is very supportive of our grandchildren, I hope you don’t think that’s too bad a thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    No I said it was about family and that connotes a lot more than mere sex and procreation which is like pretending the word life connotes a bunch of cells and a given timeframe. And it’s not my definition, it’s society’s. And it’s a self-evident truth, disguised only to those who don’t want to look at it and those people come into two categories: the seriously deluded (e.g. Pete) and the truly disingenuous. There isn’t any third.

    Sorry, I missed this.

    Yes, you said marriage is primarily about family, rather than being primarily about love. You say that society agrees. And presumably by “family” you mean having and raising children, since you’re bringing it up in the context of a discussion about same-sex marriage.

    So, Reid, explain how a married couple who cannot or choose not to have children fit into your (and society’s, apparently) definition of marriage.

    (It fits into my definition because of their committed love.)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. stephieboy (1,162 comments) says:

    I thought it would be useful to post an extensive resource page with numerous links repudiating 9/11 Conspiracy Theories . I do this given the the number of posts with links from often the far right and left with conspiracy based info. My page of links are highly recommended for anyone wishing to engage their critical thinking skills and apply a modicum of commonsense to analyzing and understanding to these outlandish and ludicrous theories .
    I have especially in mind newer or other members who may not be familiar with the 9/11 Truth Movement.

    http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Reid (15,594 comments) says:

    I hope you don’t think that’s too bad a thing.

    See? I told you Pete wouldn’t get it.

    I mean it Pete. Get your delusion checked out by a trained professional before you hurt yourself. It’s that serious.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Reid (15,594 comments) says:

    So, Reid, explain how a married couple who cannot or choose not to have children fit into your (and society’s, apparently) definition of marriage.

    Ryan you know what a social more is? That’s right, it’s a social convention. And as with any social convention, you have the vast majority who cluster around the centre and you have others who taper off toward both ends. The Bell curve denotes this well in a standard distribution model.

    To use an analogy let’s talk about another social convention which is the open road speed limit. The Bell curve would suggest that most people cluster around the middle and go approximately the same speed which happens to coincide with the law, and some go slower and some go faster. A few people go somewhat slower, a few less much slower and a tiny fraction go really really slow and the same with faster. And this is easily verified by observing what people do on the open road.

    You can apply the same thinking to the marriage social more and either create a single bell curve for the whole thing or even create separate bell curves for the individual various things that happen in it, which includes everything from monogamy to having children.

    What social engineers do is seek to change the structure of the bell curve so that over time, most people coalesce along different dimensions and divorce and marriage for life is one of the ones they started working on in the sixties but this was helped by various things that happened since just before WWI. But that’s how it works and that’s how they think.

    So you see your no-child example is merely a variant in the bell curve, it doesn’t invalidate the model, because you’re looking at shifting the mass toward one or the other extreme, over time, in a way in which people don’t even notice they’re being shifted.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Reid,

    That seems to me a perfectly sound justification for the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage doesn’t invalidate the model, because it’s a variant in the bell curve – an approximation of an admittedly fuzzily defined social convention.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Reid (15,594 comments) says:

    That seems to me a perfectly sound justification for the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage doesn’t invalidate the model, because it’s a variant in the bell curve

    You missed the point Ryan. The bell curve simply describes the social more. It describes it. It describes it. Do I need to say it again? It doesn’t “do” anything, in other words. It’s neither valid nor invalid, in other words.

    Like I said, if you want to change a social more, then you would do something which makes people change their thinking. And you would use the bell curve to monitor progress toward your goal.

    And what they’ve done here with gay marriage is mix dirty clothes with clean clothes to shift the mean (i.e. the average) toward getting straights to think about their relationships the same way gays think about theirs. And when you do that all the clothes get dirty, don’t they. The dirty clothes don’t become clean, do they.

    No.

    And the reason why its dirty mixed with clean is because (bell curve) gay relationships are foundationally based on sex whereas (bell curve) straight relationships are foundationally based on children: i.e. family. What dime described above how gays behave is how they behave.

    Get it?

    Probably not, I know.

    Wait for Pete to come galloping in with his experience about his second marriage not having any children and about how he hallucinates that means I’m wrong, whereas what Pete’s second marriage represents is simply an outlier on the bell curve, nothing more and nothing less, the bell curve still exists.

    Get it now?

    I hope so Ryan. I know Pete still won’t, but I sure hope you do.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. SGA (546 comments) says:

    The standard bell curve is most useful as a model for continuous dimensions (speed, height, IQ, number of children in a family). For the multi-dimensional, categorical distinctions under discussion, children vs no-children, mixed- versus same-sex, it’s not particularly useful, even as an analogy.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. MH (558 comments) says:

    It’s always the clergy that rings the bell in the end even as it diminishes, it tolls for thee.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Reid (15,594 comments) says:

    For the multi-dimensional, categorical distinctions under discussion, children vs no-children, mixed- versus same-sex, it’s not particularly useful, even as an analogy.

    It is actually. And bear in mind we are talking about social constructs, which are not physical entities, they are ideas which lead to physical behaviours.

    As I said, the evil ones have measured the social construct of what we currently call marriage as it exists in peoples minds, and this is no different from conducting polls on political opinion. And they have decided they’re not happy with it because it currently all sorts of despicable values such as loyalty, fidelity, sacrifice, permanence, love, etc. They decided they much prefer the values of another social group they’ve labelled gays who, along the lines of the bell curve, behave precisely as dime has described. Sure, a few of them behave like married couples and a few of them behave much worse than dime describes, but the majority of them behave as described. In the same way that not all married couples behave with those values of fidelity etc, some of them behave much better than the average and some of them behave much worse.

    But by mixing the two groups together so the social constructs become conflated in the minds of people who haven’t even been born yet they can change this damnable aberration of fidelity, loyalty, sacrifice, love etc etc and create a new normal and turn fidelity and loyalty into multiple partners and sacrifice into selfishness and love into lust etc. And of course there will still be outliers on both sides in people who haven’t been born yet, who really do practice genuine fidelity, sacrifice etc etc just as there will be people who are much worse on the other side of the bell curve. But thank goodness, say the evil ones, the vast vast majority of people will no longer be wedded to this damnable inconvenient family concept that’s been the ban of their plans for simply ages.

    So it is particularly useful, as an analogy because that’s precisely what they are doing.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Reid,

    So your bell curve analogy was describing the way things are in our society thanks to social engineering? I wasn’t asking about that. I’m asking about your definitions or understanding of marriage.

    You say that family/having children/raising children is essential to marriage, which is why same-sex couples are not marriages. Correct me if I’m wrong about that.

    You consider childless straight marriages to be valid marriages. Correct me if I’m wrong about that.

    I asked how you personally reconcile those two positions. You responded with the bell curve, which I mistook for your explanation of how you see marriage and why something that does not perfectly fit the raising-kids model (childless straight marriages) is still marriage.

    So what I’m asking is not about society or social engineering or whatever – I’m asking about how you personally reconcile those two assertions which seem, on the surface, to be contradictory.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Reid (15,594 comments) says:

    You say that family/having children/raising children is essential to marriage, which is why same-sex couples are not marriages. Correct me if I’m wrong about that.

    I have been talking about what marriage as a social construct is based on vs what a gay relationship as a social construct is based on. The former is based on family and the latter on sex. This does not mean every instance of the former is based on family and it does not mean every instance of the latter is based on sex. It means the vest majority of instances of each is based on those things and there are outliers in both groups on either side of the mean.

    You seem to be conflating the concept of being valid with the concept of describing what in fact something actually is. Don’t. The fact marriage as a social construct is based on family does not per se make it valid just as with gay relationship being based on sex does not per se make that invalid.

    But if you’re happy with the social construct of family becoming conflated with sex, then I suggest you should examine yourself because that’s a great danger to society as we know it and it’s letting your grandchildren in for a hellish existence. However if you think that’s OK then fine, that’s your choice, but permit me to disagree. As long as you fully understand what your position is letting your grandchildren and everyone else’s in for and see my 2:32 if any of that is unclear.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. nasska (9,550 comments) says:

    Reid

    ….” Pete’s second marriage represents is simply an outlier on the bell curve, nothing more and nothing less, the bell curve still exist”….

    Okay….we can happily accept a marriage based on companionship & mutual support is an outlier which doesn’t really have any bearing on the main purpose of marriage….that of raising kids in a stable relationship. Such non procreating marriages are not exactly rare yet as you correctly describe, a mere outlier.

    There are no absolute figures to draw on but it seems generally accepted that homosexuality is restricted to between two & three percent of the population.

    Even if every one of these gays & lesbians marry each other, which seems highly unlikely, there are simply not enough potential participants to cause even an infinitesimal movement on your “bell curve”.

    You are surely overstating a problem which hardly exists except in the head space of a few Godwhacks who have got their noses out of joint over bugger all.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. MH (558 comments) says:

    so then there is a good chances of having someones arranged gay marriage annulled ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Reid (15,594 comments) says:

    Look at how divorce on demand has changed marriage nasska. This is much much bigger, and just like divorce on demand didn’t start showing up in the stats the day after the legislation was passed, neither will this.

    So you can call it bugger all if you want mate, but wait thirty years then let me know.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    I have been talking about what marriage as a social construct is based on vs what a gay relationship as a social construct is based on. The former is based on family and the latter on sex. This does not mean every instance of the former is based on family and it does not mean every instance of the latter is based on sex. It means the vest majority of instances of each is based on those things and there are outliers in both groups on either side of the mean.

    But we’re not talking about gay relationships, we’re talking about gay marriage. If you want to compare apples with apples, compare the social construct of a straight relationship with the social construct of a gay relationship – both of which are based on sex, by your judgment.

    You seem to be conflating the concept of being valid with the concept of describing what in fact something actually is. Don’t. The fact marriage as a social construct is based on family does not per se make it valid just as with gay relationship being based on sex does not per se make that invalid.

    I’m not looking for validity in people’s relationships, I’m looking for consistency in your position. Your idea of marriage is “based on family”, which is your reason for it excluding same-sex relationships due to their alleged lack of raising kids they conceived together. But when we come to another kind of couple who lack conceiving and raising kids, your definition is suddenly flexible enough to describe them as outliers.

    So I’m still asking, why do you not consider same-sex marriages as outliers within your flexible definition?

    But if you’re happy with the social construct of family becoming conflated with sex, then I suggest you should examine yourself because that’s a great danger to society as we know it and it’s letting your grandchildren in for a hellish existence. However if you think that’s OK then fine, that’s your choice, but permit me to disagree. As long as you fully understand what your position is letting your grandchildren and everyone else’s in for and see my 2:32 if any of that is unclear.

    Fortunately, I have said no such thing, so you needn’t worry about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. RichardX (292 comments) says:

    I don’t want to derail the discussion between Ryan & Reid but I have a couple of quick questions

    Reid (14,607 comments) says:
    January 3rd, 2014 at 10:13 am
    But when there seems to be a conflict between Old Testament laws and New Testament principles, we must follow the New Testament because it represents the most recent and most perfect revelation from God

    Some of the revelations from God are more perfect than others?
    I understood perfection to be binary
    Why are the most recent revelations better?

    Reid (14,607 comments) says:
    January 3rd, 2014 at 2:32 pm
    As I said, the evil ones have measured the social construct of what ….

    Who are “the evil ones”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Steve (North Shore) (4,327 comments) says:

    Time for the RIP tool to get rid of some horse shit

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Reid (15,594 comments) says:

    Some of the revelations from God are more perfect than others?

    I didn’t write that passage you quoted Richard, that’s why I used quotation tags to indicate that in my 10:13, which you seem to have ignored, but for future reference that’s what those quotes mean. Accordingly, I suggest you direct your question to the authors of the site I quoted from.

    Who are “the evil ones

    That answer varies depending on how much you know about them Richard. How much do you know about them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. RichardX (292 comments) says:

    Reid (14,608 comments) says:
    January 3rd, 2014 at 3:40 pm
    Some of the revelations from God are more perfect than others?
    I didn’t write that passage you quoted Richard, that’s why I used quotation tags to indicate that in my 10:13, which you seem to have ignored, but for future reference that’s what those quotes mean. Accordingly, I suggest you direct your question to the authors of the site I quoted from.

    Do you agree with the quote you posted?

    Who are “the evil ones
    That answer varies depending on how much you know about them Richard. How much do you know about them?

    Assume I know nothing as so far it is nothing but a phrase you have used for which I sought clarification

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Reid (15,594 comments) says:

    Do you agree with the quote you posted?

    I haven’t really thought about it and I’m not planning to because it’s a big question you’re asking. The whole quote relates to something entirely different. You’ve taken one sentence from it and asked a question not relevant to the post, so my answer is no answer.

    Assume I know nothing

    OK, have a look at my 10:53 and click the link and do some research into that. That’ll give you a start.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Richard,

    Here’s one response to your question that’s popular in some Christian circles these days – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. RichardX (292 comments) says:

    Thanks Ryan

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Reid (15,594 comments) says:

    Ryan BTW I’ve read your 3:21 and I sense we’re getting into the same circular road to nowhere we used to traverse back in the gay marriage debate days. I think I’ve made myself abundantly clear, if you have any genuine questions, happy to address, but please be absolutely explicit about them and please make sure you’ve read my posts today enough times you know exactly what I’ve said about social constructs and how the bell curve can be used to describe them before you ask anything. Your 3:21 for example can be addressed by such re-reading.

    Richard bear in mind dispensationalism is widely discredited in other Christian circles. Be careful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Pete George (21,830 comments) says:

    In response to “Who are the evil ones?” Reid referred to one of his numerous links. This is the only reference to evil in that document.

    Herbert Marcuse, one of the poisonous Jews who brought these evils to America.

    Maybe it’s not surprising that Reid doesn’t want to back up what he comments here directly but instead repeats his “go read and don’t pester me” habit.

    An interesting critique of Marcuse:

    Leszek Kołakowski described Marcuse’s views as essentially anti-Marxist, in that they ignored Marx’s critique of Hegel and discarded the historical theory of class struggle entirely in favor of an inverted Freudian reading of human history where all social rules could and should be discarded to create a “New World of Happiness”. Kołakowski concluded that Marcuse’s ideal society “is to be ruled despotically by an enlightened group [who] have realized in themselves the unity of Logos and Eros, and thrown off the vexatious authority of logic, mathematics, and the empirical sciences.”

    Ironically some here seem to want to throw off “the vexatious authority of logic, mathematics, and the empirical sciences”.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Ryan BTW I’ve read your 3:21 and I sense we’re getting into the same circular road to nowhere we used to traverse back in the gay marriage debate days. I think I’ve made myself abundantly clear, if you have any genuine questions, happy to address, but please be absolutely explicit about them and please make sure you’ve read my posts today enough times you know exactly what I’ve said about social constructs and how the bell curve can be used to describe them before you ask anything. Your 3:21 for example can be addressed by such re-reading.

    Okay. I’ll some direct questions, and I’ll ask them in yes/no format.

    These questions are all directed at you personally – not what society thinks or social engineers are trying to make society think or anything else like that. Your personal position, as these questions were inspired by you saying you’re happy with equal legal rights for gay couples, but not with them being recognised with the label “marriage”.

    1. Is forming a family essential to marriage? (Essential is to say, if a family is not formed by or around a union, it is not a marriage.)
    2. Is having and raising children essential to family? (Essential is to say, if children are not being conceived and raised, it does not count as a family for the purposes of question 1.)
    3. Is your objection to extending the “marriage” label to committed loving consenting adult same-sex couples due to their inability to form a social unit that counts as a family for the purposes of question 1?
    4. Are straight unions who cannot or choose not to conceive able to meet your criteria for being considered as married?

    My point is that you cannot logically answer yes to all of these questions, but it seems to me that you have affirmed each of them at different points throughout this discussion.

    In other words, you can deny that family is essential to marriage, or deny that having and raising children is essential to family (I think I’d pick this one, myself, actually), or deny that your objection to same-sex marriage is their inability to form a family so defined, or deny that childless straight couples can be marriages. But you logically have to deny at least one.

    Please, just yes/no answers to each of those four questions. Feel free to answer yes to all of them if you disagree with me about their logical inconsistency.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    http://72.52.208.92/~gbpprorg/obama/incogman.net-the-frankfurt-school-conspiracy-to-corrupt.pdf

    The School included among its members the 1960s guru of the New Left Herbert Marcuse [JEWISH], Max Horkheimer [JEWISH], Theodor Adorno [JEWISH], the popular writer Erich From [JEWISH], Leo Lowenthal [JEWISH], and Jergen Habermas – possibly the School’s most influential representative.

    Fucking hell, Reid.

    Dedicated to awakening my fellow White Americans to the real common denominator to our race and country’s destruction. I’ve studied the problem for many years now and work hard to expose these nation wrecking parasites every chance I get.

    This is great, Reid. I’m learning so much about the Frankfurt School.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. wikiriwhis business (3,302 comments) says:

    ‘I thought it would be useful to post an extensive resource page with numerous links repudiating 9/11 Conspiracy Theories .’

    Stephie Boy

    Are you aware three buildings came down on 9/11 yet there were only two planes.

    Structural experts also testified the super structure of all three buildings could not have melted due to jet fuel.

    Engineers with decades of experience also testified to the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Gulag1917 (425 comments) says:

    Richard Dawkins: “The liberal intelligentsia of Western countries is betraying itself where Islam is concerned”
    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/01/richard-dawkins-the-liberal-intelligentsia-of-western-countries-is-betraying-itself-where-islam-is-c.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Reid (15,594 comments) says:

    These questions are all directed at you personally – not what society thinks or social engineers are trying to make society think or anything else like that.

    Well there’s no point in answering them is there, because the entire discussion is about what society thinks and about how social engineers are changing that thinking. One’s personal opinion doesn’t come into it, in anyway.

    So I’m not sure what your questions mean in the context of today’s discussion. For example, my opinion to:

    1. Is forming a family essential to marriage? (Essential is to say, if a family is not formed by or around a union, it is not a marriage.)

    is completely irrelevant in the formation of the social construct of marriage as a social institution conceived in the collective heads of society. So why do you want to know my opinion to any of those? What difference does it make to what we’ve beein discussing?

    This is great, Reid. I’m learning so much about the Frankfurt School.

    At last your education begins Ryan. BTW, you do realise don’t you the difference between Shephardic and Khazarian jews? That’s very important.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    So why do you want to know my opinion to any of those? What difference does it make to what we’ve beein discussing?

    What I have been discussing, since asking you at 1.35, is what your opinion is on all of those. That is what I have been asking.

    I want to know your opinion because I am interested in how it relates to how you think the law should be structured.

    But that is what I have been asking. Over and over. Is for what you think about it, not what you think other people think about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. cha (3,540 comments) says:

    Fucking hell, Reid.

    Well you did pick the scab.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Reid (15,594 comments) says:

    I am interested in how it relates to how you think the law should be structured.

    But you already know that. I think gay couples should have all the legal and property rights straight couples do, in every way, but they cannot use the label, that’s the only thing they can’t have, and that’s not discrimination, because discrimination inheres in something physical like a right, it cannot inhere in something intangible, like a word. I accept some gays, not all but some, believe they are being discriminated against because they can’t use a word, but just because they feel like that doesn’t mean they actually are.

    If it was something insignificant, I wouldn’t mind at all telling them they could also use the word, but it’s not something insignificant, it’s the brand. And the fact it’s significant is why there has been a movement across all western countries at the same time, to advance this. That should tell even the dimmest amongst you, like Pete, that it’s not just a word. If it was just a word, why organise a movement across all western societies just to get a word?

    So that’s my opinion Ryan on how the law should be structured, I fail to understand how your questions would have elicited that, but I trust you now understand. Although I’m pretty sure you already knew all of that, anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Pete George (21,830 comments) says:

    There’s a major contradiction.

    Marriage is “just a word” so gay couples “cannot use the label, that’s the only thing they can’t have”, just a word they cannot use.

    But if they are allowed to use “just a word” some Jews will destroy civilisation as we know it as part of a grand conspiracy “across all western societies”?

    You can’t have it both ways Reid. Either it’s just a word or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    So that’s my opinion Ryan on how the law should be structured, I fail to understand how your questions would have elicited that, but I trust you now understand. Although I’m pretty sure you already knew all of that, anyway.

    It is because this is your stated position that I am interested in your answers to those four yes/no questions.

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

    But you already know that. I think gay couples should have all the legal and property rights straight couples do, in every way, but they cannot use the label, that’s the only thing they can’t have, and that’s not discrimination

    No, it’s snobbery. It’s “how dare THOSE people use OUR word to refer to their legally identical relationship”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Also, just quickly, Reid, can you confirm that you don’t actually share the views of that white-supremacist flyer you linked to? I’m guessing you quickly Googled “frankfurt school conspiracy” and picked the likeliest looking link from the first page of results?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. TimG_Oz (883 comments) says:

    Ah the good ole’ Khazarian Jew Myth: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Khazar_myth

    Reid likes anything that supports his wacky conspiracy theories. I can’t be assed reading all the BS, but it appears that he is stating that Homosexual Rights movement was started by “pretend” Jews under the control of some Satanic power, like all the other “evil” things in the world…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Reid (15,594 comments) says:

    There’s a major contradiction.

    Yes there is Pete. You have the mind of a chimp yet you can type words on the interweb. There aren’t 10,000 of you sitting around at home in Dunedin, are there?

    But seriously, suggest you read it again, I’m saying it’s not a word, it’s a brand, and we all know what that means, don’t we. (Well, we do. Not sure about you.) And don’t get too excited about the Jews, remember Pete you were reading about people who are dead. I was giving Richard a starting point.

    It is because this is your stated position that I am interested in your answers to those four yes/no questions.

    1. Is forming a family essential to marriage? (Essential is to say, if a family is not formed by or around a union, it is not a marriage.)

    No. Why do you ask?

    2. Is having and raising children essential to family? (Essential is to say, if children are not being conceived and raised, it does not count as a family for the purposes of question 1.)

    Yes. Unrequested elucidation. In the social construct world, a married couple without children are thought of as being a couple and on the bell curve of all marriages are an outlier. The reason they are an outlier (which is not my opinion it’s how society thinks) is that the word marriage and the word family are interchangeable in the social construct world.

    3. Is your objection to extending the “marriage” label to committed loving consenting adult same-sex couples due to their inability to form a social unit that counts as a family for the purposes of question 1?

    No. Unrequested elucidation. Because marriage and family are interchangeable in that they mean one and the same thing not in my opinion but in the social construct world, a coupling of people inherently unable to procreate but yet claiming at the same time to be “a family” or “a marriage” is a perversion of the social construct. That’s not a value judgement on my part that’s a simple fact to do with the nature of the social construct and if that concept makes one all emotional, I suggest one imagines apples and pears and then imagine calling a pear an apple and examine whether that’s a perversion of apples.

    4. Are straight unions who cannot or choose not to conceive able to meet your criteria for being considered as married?

    Yes. Unrequested elucidation. Because they’re straight and not gay, they’re not perverting the social construct. However on the bell curve of all marriages aka families, they are an outlier, since most marriages aka families, have children.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Reid (15,594 comments) says:

    Ah the good ole’ Khazarian Jew Myth: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Khazar_myth

    Read this Tim, it’s somewhat more substantial than a lightweight wiki post that anyone can contribute to. Nice to see you again. Ever notice how wiki never criticises Israel? Isn’t that peculiar…

    http://iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm

    No, it’s snobbery. It’s “how dare THOSE people use OUR word to refer to their legally identical relationship”

    Afraid not J. If it were I wouldn’t mind. Read todays posts on it, you might learn something.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Okay, thanks for your answers, Reid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. TimG_Oz (883 comments) says:

    A long rambling post from 1954, is more substantial than a documented referenced summary of facts? Ok.

    Read the Wiki – one of the items basically says “Even if it were true .. so what”.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Reid (15,594 comments) says:

    I’m guessing you quickly Googled “frankfurt school conspiracy” and picked the likeliest looking link from the first page of results?

    Yes I did actually, but what I constantly get surprised about is how excited everyone gets whenever Jews are mentioned. Their thinking processes are instantly consumed not by the subject under discussion but about the fact Jew was mentioned, as some of you have just demonstrated.

    Personally, I look straight through it, facts are facts and if you get distracted by the word jew or jewish then you’ll never get them, you’ll always go off on a tangent.

    It’s like a distraction meme, isn’t it. Almost like it was designed that way. A bit like the word holocaust denier, which has a similar effect. Isn’t that peculiar.

    A long rambling post from 1954, is more substantial than a documented referenced summary of facts? Ok.

    Tim I’ll read that wiki if you’ll do the same with mine then we can discuss both. And bear in mind a “referenced summary of facts” is your opinion

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. cha (3,540 comments) says:

    It’s the same old Tim, disgusting.

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/03/general_debate_4_march_2012.html#comment-940300

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/10/labour_looking_at_quotas_for_everything.html#comment-1224827

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. TimG_Oz (883 comments) says:

    What, I have to read the whole thing, and then actually debate it?

    I’d rather do something more fun, like shave my nipples with a cheese grater.

    Anyway, I’m outta here. Enjoy the weekend people.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Yes I did actually, but what I constantly get surprised about is how excited everyone gets whenever Jews are mentioned. Their thinking processes are instantly consumed not by the subject under discussion but about the fact Jew was mentioned, as some of you have just demonstrated.

    Personally, I look straight through it, facts are facts and if you get distracted by the word jew or jewish then you’ll never get them, you’ll always go off on a tangent.

    It’s like a distraction meme, isn’t it. Almost like it was designed that way. A bit like the word holocaust denier, which has a similar effect. Isn’t that peculiar.

    I think my eyebrows would be no less raised by the diatribe if it was peppered by [CHINESE] or [MAORI] or [RED-HEADED].

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. SGA (546 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull at 6:27 pm

    I think my eyebrows would be no less raised by the diatribe if it was peppered by [CHINESE] or [MAORI] or [RED-HEADED].

    Finally had a quick look. Most disturbing was the opening photo – Gene Simmons of KISS is part of the conspiracy! Yes, he is [JEWISH].

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Reid (15,594 comments) says:

    In that case same advice to you Ryan I gave to Tim – read this

    http://iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “……Lucia, your suggestion that the State legislates and/or advocates a particular kind of family arrangement to impose a particular kind of functional stability in society terrifies me….”

    Up until the 80′s it was an expected norm of NZ society and government to get Married and have kids. The government saw that as prosperity. I believe they moreso thought that after WW2 and advocated it.[history shows that returning soldiers have to be 'settled'.]

    The government no longer holds the view that we should create good men. Anything goes now. And suicide of male fathers is horrendously high. – due to feminism – the governments ‘functional stability in society’ programme.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. nasska (9,550 comments) says:

    There was once a great actor who could no longer remember his
    lines. After many years he finds a theatre where they are
    prepared to give him a chance to shine again.

    The director says, “This is the most important part, and it has
    only one line. You walk on to the stage at the opening carrying
    a rose. You hold the rose to your nose with just one finger and
    thumb, sniff the rose deeply and then say the line ‘Ah, the sweet
    aroma of my mistress.’”

    The actor is thrilled. All day long before the play, he’s
    practising his line over and over again. Finally, the time comes.
    The curtain goes up, the actor walks onto the stage, and with
    great passion delivers the line, “Ah, the sweet aroma of my
    mistress.”

    The theatre erupts. The audience is screaming with laughter, but
    the director is steaming!

    “You bloody fool!” he cries. “You have ruined me!”

    The actor is bewildered, “What happened, did I forget my line?”

    “No!” screams the director. “You idiot! You forgot the rose!”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Johnboy (13,424 comments) says:

    And I thought he would be carrying a can of sardines. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. nasska (9,550 comments) says:

    It’s gone too quiet. :)

    Ref: https://www.dropbox.com/s/zuk22si37a15ki4/Faith%2023.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Johnboy (13,424 comments) says:

    Never been the same since Red moved on nasska.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. nasska (9,550 comments) says:

    He’s gone on to better things JB. The messages are abridged & his entire life has shrunk to 140 character chunks of conservoshit but he’s probably receiving the respect he is due.

    Justin Bieber is following him. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Johnboy (13,424 comments) says:

    I miss Dennis and Kea as well nasska….what news of them? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Lucia Maria (1,994 comments) says:

    Harriet,

    Your comment just reminded of something I was reading recently – that celibacy was subversive and therefore Catholic priests refusing to marry threatened the (protestant) political order. I’ll have to remember what that in reference to .. could have been Germany in the 1800′s …

    I have to look back through my history, that’s kinda scary for me given everything I read!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Johnboy (13,424 comments) says:

    Certainly wasn’t Australia or NZ in the 60′s and 70′s Lucia! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. nasska (9,550 comments) says:

    Don’t know what happened to the poet JB but I think Kea’s due back on about the 11th.

    Hopefully he lasts a little longer before getting his feathers ruffled this time round. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Johnboy (13,424 comments) says:

    It’s tough for us three time losers to adapt to the rules nasska. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. cha (3,540 comments) says:

    Do the ewes align themselves JB?.

    http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Blog/2014/01/02/Dogs-align-themselves-with-Earths-magnetic-field-when-it-comes-time-to-poop/8781388679392/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. nasska (9,550 comments) says:

    Mythbusters would have a field day with that cha….I’ve got eight dogs at the moment & I reckon that they can crap on demand at all points of the compass. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. cha (3,540 comments) says:

    We’re down to two and I’m going to be watching their ablutions like a hawk.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “….We’re down to two and I’m going to be watching their ablutions like a hawk….”

    Bored with your other fetishes Cha? :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. cha (3,540 comments) says:

    If they had tits….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Reid (15,594 comments) says:

    Ryan if you come back this morning, look at this Rabbi, who rips those to whom I was referring above.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. axeman (250 comments) says:

    Serious questions need to be asked of the Ship of Fools

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. SPC (4,675 comments) says:

    Death bed confession of a local agent of the Frankfurt School. Looks Khazar too.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11180931

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. stephieboy (1,162 comments) says:

    Reid (14,618 comments) says:
    January 4th, 2014 at 12:08 am

    Rabbi Weiiss is , of course entitle to his view on Zionism.
    But he may not beware that that there are Anti Zionists like e.g neo nazis today who cannot and do not make a distinction between Zionism and being a Jew.The learned Rabbis’ anti Zionists rants would not excluded him from falling foul of Hitler and his regime. They did not see a distinction between the two
    Its my belief you might be one of them given the rather paranoid anti jewish sentiment of you past posts

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.