About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

January 8, 2010 1:07pm by David Farrar

Marriage in the United States

Like this:

Like Loading...

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment122

United States
marriage
same sex marriage
United States

Comments (122)

Login to comment or vote

whalehunter

states that allow marriage to two wives.
7 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 1:09pm
Jack5

Does NZ allow first cousins to marry?

If so might account for some of the weirdos in places like the Ureweras.

Before anyone mouths off about the deep south, consider that most of the ferals in the south are from the inbreeding of old hippies etc. Most of those barefoot, dope-smoking originals escaped from Auckland and Wellington suburbia.
13 4
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 1:16pm
Murray

Actually think in a few of those states marriage between cousins is more of a requirement than an option.
20 4
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 1:24pm
Poliwatch

Jack5 – why are you so sensitive about the feral types in the deep south?

Actually by the look of the map above it seems that feral types seem to be more prevalent in the deep south of the US as well as NZ – is there a common issue here?
3 5
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 1:24pm
big bruv

“If so might account for some of the weirdos in places like the Ureweras.”

And Canterbury.
20 8
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 1:30pm
Jack5

Poliwatch:

You may have something. Kyle Chapman, the part-Maori survivalist and ultra-right leader, sprang to light in Southland after an attack on a southern marae. Haven’t heard of the KKK in the south though.

You would have to say the Harawiras in politics, and the Maori gangs in crime, are the country’s real ferals at the moment, though, wouldn’t you? And they all be god dam northenas.

Big Bruv: come down to Christchurch and tell that to the Harrises. I’ll give you the address. Tell me where you want your ashes sent.
11 6
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 1:30pm
Ross Nixon

Why are they calling same-sex civil unions ‘marriage’?
Is this to give it an air of respectability?

Marriage is between a man and woman.
87 66
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 1:32pm
Steve

Well goooolleee, who woulda thunk it?
5 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 1:45pm
Inventory2

Good point Ross. It galls me to hear the likes of Tim Barnett and Chris Carter talking about their marriages, when patently they were not. As MP’s who pushed the Civil Unions Act through Parliament, they should know better than anyone that a Civil Union is NOT the same as a marriage. It’s a deliberate and dishonest use of the terminolgy in order to make all us 3.75 million homophobes see things through gay lenses.
76 36
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 1:50pm
andrei

Well in New Zealand a may not marry is Grandmother’s civil union partner but may marry his first cousin.

Gosh I never realized we were such hillbillies.
10 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 1:54pm
CharlieBrown

Hehe, in some New England states a guy could marry his male cousin… the movie deliverance springs to mind.
12 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 1:58pm
malcolm

As MP’s who pushed the Civil Unions Act through Parliament, they should know better than anyone that a Civil Union is NOT the same as a marriage.

So where does all the “this will undermine the institution of marriage..” opposition spring from?
19 5
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 2:06pm
Jeremy Harris

Charles Darwin married his first cousin, so hillbillies and geniuses it seems…
9 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 2:06pm
CharlieBrown

Civil Unions are effectively marriages. My personal opinion is that a marriage not done in the name of god sits on the same level as a civil union. Both should be respected as they signal commitment to each other, however in my opinion aren’t the same as being married under god. Although, the law should treat all three the same gay marriage allowed with civil unions and the legality of de facto relationships abolished.

Churches should be free to choose who they can and cannot marry or have preach however we shouldn’t be prohibiting any people committed to each other to make that commitment legal.
32 15
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 2:08pm
BK Drinkwater

@Ross @Inventory

New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachussets, and Vermont have gay marriage, as in not civil unions. (As does the Coquille Tribe in Oregon, and probably Washington DC soon).

Vermont, Connecticut, and New Hampshire have at various points had civil unions, but now have same-sex marriage instead. (CT and NH either converted or will soon convert existing same-sex civil unions into marriages.) New Jersey has civil unions.

So I’m guessing, and I may be going out on a limb here, that it’s called marriage in the map legend above because, legally, that’s what it is.
14 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 2:10pm
Jack5

Jeremy Harris posted at 2.06:

Charles Darwin married his first cousin, so hillbillies and geniuses it seems…

Adam and Eve’s grandchildren, too.

Creationists into it as well as evolutionists.
17 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 2:13pm
mjanderson

@CharlieBrown
Nail on the head, I don’t see why that is not the accepted norm!

Keep the wording different, but have the same legal effect and rights. So Simple.
11 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 2:15pm
Rufus

David –

interesting, but what’s your point?

peace,
Rufus

[DPF: Just fomenting mischief]
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 2:20pm
fishe

@CharlieBrown, agreed.

I think the state should get out of the marriage game completely. The state should only offer civil unions, which are binding in a legal/financial sense. After this, people can go and have whatever other ceremony/tradition they desire.
21 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 2:30pm
fishe

@mjanderson, well it would be that simple, but you seem to be forgetting something…a lot of folk still appear to have irrational negative feelings towards The Gays.

Give it another generation, we’ll get there.
8 13
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 2:32pm
andrei

@CharlieBrown
Nail on the head, I don’t see why that is not the accepted norm!

Keep the wording different, but have the same legal effect and rights. So Simple.

Wrong What you silly liberals have forgotten is that societies that place a premium on reproducing go forth into the future and those that do not will not persist.

And that the benefits that were accorded to married couples by society in the past – tax breaks and so forth, were granted because of the understanding of the importance of raising the next generation to society at large.

Marriage as an institution that only exists and only needs to because of reproduction – its not about RIGHTS its about survivial of our culture.

And as is patently obvious sodomy will not bring forth a new generation to follow on from us – but it is those that understand this only too well who will inherit the earth – and those with the greatest grasp of this, fact of life, in the modern world are Islamic and they do not have an “enlightened” attitude to hedonistic gay lifestyles, nor where their world view holds sway are such things openly tolerated – just the converse in fact.

But hey what the hell – just because your rights may well insure my children live under tyranny whats it to you? Nothing because you are doomed to extinction and will drag mine down with you.
43 37
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 2:33pm
peterwn

A while back, I came across about three private Acts of Parliament. These were to allow a child adopted by a couple to marry a natural child of that couple. There are no potential genetic problems in such cases, but the texts of the Marriage and Adoption Acts must have been interpreted as forbidding such marriages.

Genetic problems can and do occur with the offspring of marriage between first cousins, this being a particular problem with royal families where marriage options for those high on the succession list are limited. This would be why some USA states ban such marriages.

There have been a few possibly grotesque cases in NZ along the lines of (I think) A marries B, B dies and A then marries B’s parent or other close but non-blood relative.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 2:33pm
Angus

Andrei, spot on.

Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: “Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.”

(“Beyond Gay Marriage,” Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
26 12
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 2:36pm
NOt1tocommentoften

Wrong What you silly liberals have forgotten is that societies that place a premium on reproducing go forth into the future and those that do not will not persist.

Andrei – this suggests that in restricting marriage to heterosexual couples we will maintain current birth rates and the continued existence of society. I don’t understand your logic. Allowing marriage only to some is not placing a premium on reproducing. What rubbish.
21 14
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 2:37pm
Ryan Sproull

Marriage is between a white man and a white woman, and this sanctity will never be defiled by filthy communist politically correct governments.
27 32
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 2:42pm
Anna Sewell

Against gay marriage? Then don’t get one and shut the fuck up.
46 41
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 2:42pm
andrei

. Allowing marriage only to some is not placing a premium on reproducing. What rubbish.

Oh yeah – then why can’t you marry your sister? Or even civil unionize her then?

You know the answer – its because of reproduction!
19 5
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 2:43pm
stephen

Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. .

I think that means ‘getting people to stop hating us’, or something.
15 11
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 2:45pm
kiwitoffee

Ross Nixon. Absolutely right. Yet another example of the ‘gay’ community and their friends hi-jacking the language.
19 11
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 2:52pm
Pete George

Whether homosexuals get civil unioned/married or not won’t affect the rates of reproduction. And why would it “radically reordering society’s view of reality” except for those that don’t have a realistic view?
12 7
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 2:58pm
CharlieBrown

Andrei – “..of the understanding of the importance of raising the next generation to society at large.”

Consider the following:

After 2 years of living with someone the state deams a partner you are in a de-facto relationship (regardless if you are aware of or want to be), you are automatically categorised the same as someone married when it comes to property relationship laws. This is an ass law as you can voluntary make this commitment by being married or having a civil union and if you are too stupid or not willing to make this commitment then you don’t have to.

An unmarried father/mother has exactly the same rights as married parents

There are no tax advantages to being a married or unmarried parent

Todays welfare indirectly encourages single parenthood for some people.

From what I understand, the legal distinction between a marriage and civil union is the name only.

So can you please explain to me what a legal marriage means in this day and age? You and I are free to decide what we consider a real marriage or not, bit what tangible reason do we have in legally labeling civil unions, marriages and de facto relationships as different?
17 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 3:08pm
Anna Sewell

What I don’t get is the kind of deliberate delusion in which a person chooses to pretend the world is more horrifying and filled with more and more-monstrous monsters. Why would anyone prefer such a place to the real world? Why would anyone wish for a world filled with socialist conspiracies, secret Muslim atheists, Satan-worshiping pop stars and bloodthirsty baby-killers?
15 19
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 3:10pm
kelsey

Wrong What you silly liberals have forgotten is that societies that place a premium on reproducing go forth into the future and those that do not will not persist.

Right, so by that logic infertile heterosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to marry either, right? Or couples past the age of reproduction?

And your implication is that if we make gay marriage impossible somehow gays will decide to have heterosexual marriages and reproduce? That’s idiotic in the extreme.
22 12
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 3:11pm
malcolm

Wrong. What you silly liberals have forgotten is that societies that place a premium on reproducing go forth into the future and those that do not will not persist.

How do civil unions affect the birth rate, Andrei? Are you suggesting that the presence of civil unions is discouraging heterosexuals from having children? Now that’s silly.
24 9
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 3:12pm
kiwitoffee

Call it what you like. Civil Union will do. But its not a marriage, no matter how hard it tries to be.
22 10
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 3:20pm
big bruv

Perhaps the Yanks are smarter than us Kiwis, maybe they have worked out that ‘gay’ or ‘same sex’ marriage is nothing more than a back door (no pun intended) way of ushering in gay or same sex adoption.

As far as I am concerned same sex couples can have their civil unions, marriage is, or should be, between a bloke and a chick, the same goes for adoption.
21 21
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 3:24pm
Ryan Sproull

Marriage is between a man and his wives, not a man and other men! Truth doesn’t change, people. Words don’t *snort* EVOLVE.
18 13
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 3:39pm
Pete George

It’s not as if “marriage” has ever been one clearly defined thing. It varies now around the world and has varied throughout history. It had often been more of a business arrangement (and for aristocrats a political arrangement), commonly arranged by family and love was practiced extramaritaly.

Marriages were often a means of virtually assigning ownership of the wife to the husband.

There is a long history of recorded same-sex unions. It is believed that same-sex unions were celebrated in Ancient Greece and Rome, China, and in ancient European history.
12 9
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 3:44pm
James

Since when has sex been about just reproduction? Thats a side consideration but small fry to the main point….enjoyment!
12 5
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 3:46pm
side show bob

The trouble is big bruv a “civil union” just does not cut it with some of the gay community. A civil union may have every right and privilege a married couple enjoys but it’s the word that counts. The gay community, or the radical factions will not rest till it says married on the certificate. It’s the principal that counts and it must be in your face. It’s all part of the liberal come progressive way to break down morals and laws set down by a higher authority.
19 6
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 3:49pm
Pete George

It’s all part of the liberal come progressive way to break down morals and laws set down by a higher authority.

??

If homosexual couples call a legal union a marriage it doesn’t affect my morals at all. Why would it break down anyone else’s morals?
20 11
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 3:53pm
Grant Michael McKenna

As a cousin of mine- admittedly not a first cousin- is Gail McKenna, I can understand the concept.
3 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 3:53pm
PaulL

Ah, the glories of another day on Kiwiblog.

Getting back to the topic, I think DPF is drawing attention to the disparities here. I see two consistent positions:
– we don’t care what people do in their private lives, gays can marry, so can first cousins
– we don’t like people doing icky things, neither gays nor first cousins can marry.

There look to be about 5 states in the first category, and about 25 in the second category.

Then we have the other groups:
– marrying your first cousin is all good, in fact, we think people should do it. But none of the disgusting gay stuff. There are quite a few states in that category
– gay stuff, all good with us. In fact, we’ll teach people in schools. But shagging your first cousin, now that is just downright gross. None of that gonna be happening in our state – hell, you’d end up with two-headed kids.

Both of these positions are somewhat amusing, to me at least.

My recollection was that consistent in-breeding across generations (a la European royalty) was a problem. A single generation is unlikely to cause a problem – sure, if your family happens to carry a rare recessive gene then your odds of freakish children probably go from one in a 100 to one in 50, but you had to have that gene in the first place. For most people it really is unlikely to have a downside unless your whole family decides it’s a way of life and do it for generation after generation (again, a la European royalty).

As for gay marriage, what to say that hasn’t been said before. My 5c, as always, is that you’ve got your head up your arse if you think that someone else being able to get married somehow devalues your own marriage. But that argument’s been played out here plenty of times before with no likelihood of anyone changing their minds.
14 10
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 3:58pm
James

“It’s the principal that counts and it must be in your face. It’s all part of the liberal come progressive way to break down morals and laws set down by a higher authority.”

What sort of morality is it that justifys State force against people wanting to consentually bond and be recognised on a level plane with their fellow man?

This non existent God has a lot of misery and hurt to answer for…
16 17
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 4:00pm
big bruv

“If homosexual couples call a legal union a marriage it doesn’t affect my morals at all. Why would it break down anyone else’s morals?”

Because as side show bob says it is all about the gay community being in our face, they are not happy with having the right they really want to flaunt it.

It is almost as if they actively seek out people who are against it so they can then assume the role of persecuted victim.

As I have said before, I could not give a toss what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom, what I do object to is being told that I MUST be happy about the idea of gay marriage or civil union, I do not seek to stop what they are doing but I bloody well reserve the right to say that I think it is weird.
26 18
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 4:05pm
NOt1tocommentoften

SSB – can you explain to me what the “radical faction of the gay community” is? Made me laugh.
5 14
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 4:06pm
Elijah Lineberry

As a freedom lover I think if a chap wants to marry 16 Women and 79 Men he should be free to do so if everybody consents.

Similarly if a chap wants to marry his cousin, or all of his cousins …(in a group marriage ceremony would the caterer would give you a discount?).. it is nobody else’s business.

“Live and let live” is my motto (and I wonder how many other ‘libertarians’ can honestly say the same) 😉

I am never surprised, alas, at how the State seeks to engage in busybody-ism as to whom you can marry, and adds insult to injury by handing you a list of ‘unapproved’ people you cannot marry and for no particular reason at all other than some people want to mind the business of other people.

http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com
7 16
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 4:08pm
NOt1tocommentoften

Not happy Big Bruv? Why would they be? And this right they speak of is some half arse attempt to fend off the concerns of the conservative factions in NZ. If you were denied something others enjoyed through state discrimination wouldn’t you be unhappy too? Sure you would.
4 13
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 4:08pm
Pete George

bruv, you must be happy with the idea of gay marriage or civil union.

There, see, it wasn’t that bad. I’m sure you’ve been told far worse things on Kiwiblog.

Yeah, I think homosexuality is weird too, but that’s just how I feel. Others have a right to their feelings, and a right to their own equivalent social commitments, and a right to be able to be open and honest about it all. I’ve never thought the gay community are in my face. I hear a heap more from heteros horrified about something they don’t have to have anything to do with.

And in today’s mobile society I doubt the cousin thing is a big deal either.
8 6
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 4:12pm
PaulL

big bruv – generalising about a whole community based on the actions of a few is really not useful. Most gay people I know aren’t particularly interested in rubbing anyone’s nose in it, they just want to live and let live. And a few are nut job activists. Just like some religos are nut job activists, some environmentalists are nut jobs, some Maori, some white people, some atheists etc etc etc. Are you really saying that you think all gay people shouldn’t be allowed a marriage/civil union because some small proportion of their number like to rub your face in the fact that they are gay?

Pete George, I don’t think homosexuality is weird, but it definitely isn’t something that sounds like fun to me. Then again, some people think B&D is fun, and that isn’t my thing either. Doesn’t make it weird, just different.
15 9
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 4:22pm
big bruv

PaulL

Fair point, I should have said “certain sections of the gay community”.
11 4
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 4:25pm
Pete George

Just terminology Paul. It seems weird to me that homosexuals feel the way they do, and yeah, same about those who like B&D, same about those who like rooting around, same about those who purchase sexual services, and a lot of other things, I’m quite traditional and straight, not through any pressure, it’s just how I am.
5 6
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 4:27pm
starboard

a lot of folk still appear to have irrational negative feelings towards The Gays.

…nothin irrational about it…dress it up and call it what ya want…gay marriage/civil union is bullshit and so long as my arse points downwards, gay marriage/civil union/same sex cohesion will always be ‘subnormal’
13 11
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 4:35pm
Ryan Sproull

I’m with Elijah.
4 13
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 4:36pm
Pete George

Ah, you mean in agreement Ryan?
5 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 4:41pm
Ryan Sproull

No, we’re getting married.

Yes, in agreement.
9 4
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 4:50pm
DRBASS

Surely if homosexuality is genetic and darwin is right, give it a few generations and the issue will evolve away and the heterosexual world can move on until the next gene mutation?
8 7
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 4:58pm
Kris K

Anna Sewell 2:42 pm,

Against gay marriage? Then don’t get one and shut the fuck up.

Another high calibre comment from Anna.
If you have kids, do you also kiss them with that mouth?
(Nothing worse than a woman that swears like a trooper)

Being queer is a sin, and queer ‘marriage’ is an abomination and a contradiction in terms – marriage is between a man and a woman. And maybe YOU should shut your filthy mouth.
17 22
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 4:58pm
MT_Tinman

A rather lightweight Pommy wordsmith once wrote;

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”

I don’t care what they call it as long as they don’t expect me to participate.

I’m with Big Bruv on the adoption thing though.
8 5
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 5:02pm
Rod

“Does NZ allow first cousins to marry?”
Of course, along with almost all the rest of the world except certain states in the US. They used to too, but the weird eugenics movement that inspired Hitler had a powerful influence there a century or so ago. Not just Darwin, but also Einstein, Grieg and lots more examples abound. In fact, in parts of the Middle East it is probably more common than not – ok, I know, that might explain something!
10 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 5:03pm
dad4justice

I think homosexuals are not well in the head.
19 26
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 5:06pm
Elijah Lineberry

Dad4Justice – at least homosexuals are ‘men’ who have some ‘balls’ unlike you.

This is in contrast to those effete, wimpy chaps who have to slink around like a eunich crying bitter tears and complaining about the Family Court because they allowed vexatious women to push them around 😉

http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com
11 20
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 5:10pm
Kris K

James 4:00 pm,

What sort of morality is it that justifys State force against people wanting to consentually bond and be recognised on a level plane with their fellow man?

Why stop there, James?
How about allowing ‘marriage’ between adults and minors, or men and young boys (heard of NAMBLA?), or heck, between a person and their pet dog? With no standards, and the laws that back them up, then anything goes.
Your idea of ‘freedom’ without standards ends up with anarchy and abominable perversions dressed up as ‘marriage’ and other evil.

This non existent God has a lot of misery and hurt to answer for…

Maybe you should do a little research into atheistic countries and how they treat their populaces – some REAL “misery and hurt” for your entertainment pleasure.
11 11
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 5:12pm
dad4justice

Elijah – I help homosexuals recover to become normal again.
13 17
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 5:12pm
Brian (Shadowfoot)

Do some marriages end up as uncivil unions?
12 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 5:16pm
MikeNZ

I loved this viewpoint on so called Gay marriage by Dr Kelly Hollowell in 2004
Sensible then, sensible now.

It’s dilution, stupid!

The question is “If gays can get married, how does that destroy my marriage or yours? How does giving rights to one group take away rights from another group?”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=24528
5 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 5:17pm
Graeme Edgeler

Same thing could be said about the situation in New Zealand, DPF.

Marriage between first cousins is permitted, but between two men or two women it is not.
11 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 5:17pm
Kris K

dad4justice 5:06 pm,

I think homosexuals are not well in the head.

Indeed.
And it wasn’t long ago when society viewed homosexuality as a mental illness, as well as a sin of the worst kind – an abomination.
11 27
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 5:20pm
MikeNZ

D4D & KrisK
so did the American Psychological Association until the Homosexual activists got on board and bullied and brow beat them!

See http://www.narth.org for the details
Dr Jeffery Satinover has the gen.
http://www.narth.com/menus/born.html
http://www.narth.com/menus/cstudies.html
http://www.narth.com/menus/gasocsciences.html
8 4
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 5:21pm
kelsey

How about allowing ‘marriage’ between adults and minors, or men and young boys (heard of NAMBLA?), or heck, between a person and their pet dog? With no standards, and the laws that back them up, then anything goes.

Minors and dogs are not able to consent, which is a fundamental principle of a marriage.

Maybe you should do a little research into atheistic countries and how they treat their populaces – some REAL “misery and hurt” for your entertainment pleasure.

Huh? New Zealand and Scandanavian countries are amongst the most atheistic, and have low levels of misery and hurt.
14 9
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 5:24pm
dad4justice

MikeNZ – I have witnessed homosexual activists hijack a male suicide prevention conference. Stuff Barnett I walked out with the DISGUSTED learned chaps from uni and a victim support lady. Pay back poofters. How many NORMAL DADS die this year Elijah turd?
9 12
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 5:26pm
PaulL

Grant – I had to search Gail McKenna. Google brings up some interesting photos on that first search page. Seems I turned off safe search at some point……
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 5:26pm
Kris K

MikeNZ 5:21 pm,

D4D & KrisK
so did the American Psychological Association until the Homosexual activists got on board and bullied and brow beat them!

No surprises there.
In my Book (we must use the same reference material 😉 ) homosexuality is described not just as sin, but abomination. And no matter what law changes and redefining of terminology takes place – it will always be so defined in my (& God’s) eyes.
11 11
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 5:30pm
Kris K

kelsey 5:24 pm,

Minors and dogs are not able to consent, which is a fundamental principle of a marriage.

If we changed the ‘law’ so that we said they could ‘consent’ then the door is wide open for ‘marriage’ to occur between such parties. I cite homosexuality as my example of what was illegal but has now come into ‘law’.

Huh? New Zealand and Scandanavian countries are amongst the most atheistic, and have low levels of misery and hurt.

And they were founded upon Christianity. As we more fully embrace atheism then the “misery and hurt” increase accordingly.
You do read the papers and watch the news occassionally I take it?

None so blind as those who WILL NOT see, eh Kelsey?
5 16
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 5:38pm
Rex Widerstrom

andrei opines:

And as is patently obvious sodomy will not bring forth a new generation to follow on from us…

I can still recall the uproar that ensued when Sam Hunt pointed out, during an “Edwards on Saturday” episode, that it’s not an activity practised solely by male homosexuals and indeed he’d enjoy a session of it with his wife the previous evening.

Clearly it was part of their sexual repertoire, they both enjoyed it and – perhaps – it therefore helped sustain their marriage. So on that basis it could perhaps be said to be a precursor or adjunct to reproductive sex, and a means by which married and unmarried heterosexual couples opt to interact sexually.

So I’m genuinely curious about the Biblical view on that (which I’ve never taken the time to research, having somewhat more pressing priorities). Is sodomy okay with your opposite sex civil union partner, or do you have to get married for it to be okay? Or just forbidden with your same sex civil union partner? Or aren’t you meant to be doing it with anyone, even if you’ve, in Beyonce’s terms (and excuse the pun) put a ring on it?

Personally I suspect the original prohibition and the ongoing disapproval was and is more about a moral distaste for the nature of the act rather than any concerns about reproduction. After all, as others have pointed out, it’s not as though making sure every homosexual sodomite was immediately struck by lightening is going to turn them straight and see them start having families.

And anyone who paints all Muslims as intolerant towards adultery, homosexuality etc needs to get out more. Disapproval, yes. Prejudice, excommunication, intolerance – no.
10 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 5:47pm
Ryan Sproull

And it wasn’t long ago when society viewed homosexuality as a mental illness, as well as a sin of the worst kind – an abomination.

Crazy that in a world of torture, child abuse, child soldiers, preventable starvation, rape, genital mutilation, human sacrifice and murder, two men loving one another could be considered a “sin of the worst kind”.

Sounds like the meter hits maximum a little early.
17 8
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 5:47pm
Kris K

Ryan Sproull 5:47 pm,

Crazy that in a world of torture, child abuse, child soldiers, preventable starvation, rape, genital mutilation, human sacrifice and murder, two men loving one another could be considered a “sin of the worst kind”.

Sounds like the meter hits maximum a little early.

Yeah, good on ya, Ryan.
Up to your usual standard.

God destroyed those nations that practiced such things as well.

Sodom, Gomorrah, and the other regions/nations that practiced such ‘abominations’ as sodomy, child/human sacrifice, rape, starvation of others, child abuse, etc. were ALL wiped out by God.

When God’s “meter hits maximum”, then watch out – His grace only extends so far, and then the games up.
Ditto on the personal level, Ryan.
5 23
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 5:59pm
Kris K

MikeNZ 5:17 pm

I loved this viewpoint on so called Gay marriage by Dr Kelly Hollowell in 2004
Sensible then, sensible now.

It’s dilution, stupid!

The question is “If gays can get married, how does that destroy my marriage or yours? How does giving rights to one group take away rights from another group?”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=24528

Excellent link, Mike.
It is hard to deny the common sense logic she outlines – I encourage others to read this and try to refute it.

From the link:

4. Predatory Intent: Gay marriage is only one part of a long-term strategy by the gay and lesbian activist community to undermine the concept of marriage and the system of family that is based upon marriage. It is not about gay rights. It’s about the destruction of the fundamental idea of marriage as a social institution. It’s about dissolution of the traditional family unit, honoring thy father and mother, becoming of one flesh through procreation. It’s about destroying natural barriers to incest through ignorance of ones sibling relationships, rejecting sexual distinction and the order that flows and is premised upon those distinctions according to natural law. …

[Conclusion]
Based on this analysis, gay marriage will undoubtedly dilute the distinctive quality of traditional marriage. It provides a one-word answer to the question, “What harm can gay marriage inflict on traditional marriage in America?” Worse, diluting this fundamental institution will inevitably lead to the dissolution of our existing civil society by destroying its inherent social structure.

All valid points.
5 11
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 6:17pm
tristanb

Firstly, God doesn’t exist – only idiots truly believe he does. Secondly, there is nothing godly about marriage, it is nothing but a piece of paper, I don’t see what hateful people have against sex-same marriage.

Thirdly, dad4justice, you are an evil man, I hope your kids get taken from you. I strongly suggest you consider suicide to end your hateful pain.
16 21
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 6:30pm
Anna Sewell

In reality, it is hard to make a watertight Biblical argument against homosexuality. To my knowledge, there are three main Biblical passages that appear to be against homosexuality. The first is in Old Testament law (e.g. Leviticus 18:22), but is alongside a lot of other bizarre commandments, which no Christian I know observes (e.g. don’t wear cloths with two fibres), so there is no reason to see the law’s condemnation of homosexuality as anything more than an obscure old law.

The next is the example Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19), cities that were destroyed by God for their unrighteousness. The question is, what were they doing that caused them to be considered unrighteousness? The Bible gives us an example; Angels visit the town, and the men of the town want to homosexually rape them. Some take this (as does Christian tradition) to be an indication that homosexuality is wrong, but this misses the far more obvious sin; rape. Any town that’s default response to visitors is attempted rape is unrighteous, heterosexual or homosexual. So this account doesn’t provide evidence that homosexuality is wrong.

Lastly, there are a few New Testament passage that mention homosexuality amongst a list of other negative attributes. The most notable one is Romans 1, where Paul talks about people turning away from God, and engaging in homosexuality, among other things. This may appear as a scathing condemnation of homosexuality, but we should look closely at what Paul is actually saying. For a start, Romans is a horribly difficult book to understand, so we should be careful in coming to firm conclusions from a single passage. Among various interpretations, it is possible that Paul is quoting another passage, and doesn’t actually agree with what the passage is saying, which would explain why Paul suddenly flips the blame onto the readers in Romans 2: “Therefore, you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment”. Additionally, it is entirely feasible that Paul (or the passage Paul is quoting) is not commenting homosexuality per se, but pagan cults that involves sexual rituals.

So there is some apparent Biblical condemnation of homosexuality. But it’s in isolated passages, which can be explained as culturally irrelevant today. What we should look to is the broader picture of the Bible, and ignore the pieces that seem to be artifacts of the culture of Biblical authors (e.g. slavery, a decidedly non-Christian practice, is all but endorsed in Colossians 3). What is the broader picture, and what does it have to say about homosexuality?

Jesus did not come to the ‘in’ crowd. He came to the outcasts of society. He helped the lepers, he associated with ’sinners’, with tax collectors, with prostitutes, with the common people, all the people who the religious leaders looked down upon. He came bringing reversal to exploitation, he hated the idea that religion was being used to make money of people, that people were being oppressed by the economic and religious systems, and he fought against it. It took a while, but eventually his disciples caught on to the idea that the kingdom of God was not just for Jews, it was for Gentiles too. It wasn’t just for free men, but for slaves, for women, for everyone. Before God, all men and women are equal. All men and women. The end of James 1, James makes it pretty clear that if we resort to following the old ways of respecting one group over another group, we are really going against the message of Jesus.

I put it to you that homosexuals are the outcasts of modern society. Admittedly their lot in society has been getting better, but unfortunately this has been because of efforts outside of the Church, and in fact their lot has been impeded by the Church. It should be the other way round – the Church should be advocating for homosexual rights.

It’s hard to be different. Our society is heavily heterosexual, to be homosexual is a deviation from the norm. Someone who comes to terms with being a homosexual can go through a very difficult journey. They have to come to terms with being different from what seems like everyone else, they have to deal with an inner conflict as they try and work out who they are, and what they believe is right and wrong, they have to come to put up with all the derogatory comments towards homosexuals, the reactions of others when they come out, which can range from surprise to moral condemnation to disgust. Some people can be accepting, but others are not – and the most screwed up thing is that Christians are often the most unaccepting people.

Christians condemnation of homosexuality is an evil, as it goes against what Jesus taught, and also, it causes much pain. Consider the familiar example of someone growing up inside Christianity, but coming to the realisation that they have homosexual feelings. There is an inevitable dilemma; either reject the Church dogma that homosexuality is wrong, or reject a part of themselves. Both of these choices can be incredibly painful, one often leading to a disconnection from Church, family, sometimes all they know, the other often leading to a rejection of self, a horrible, horrible fate. I have seen people destroyed by this dilemma. People shouldn’t have to make this choice.

Premise 1: ‘It is not good for man to be alone’. It is an inalienable right that someone should be able to live with their mutually chosen partner. An individual’s right to form a close intimate bond with another individual should not be taken away, without very very good reasons.

Premise 2: There exists homosexual individuals who would not be satisfied by a heterosexual relationship. I’m not saying that homosexuality has a solely genetic etiology, I’m just saying that some people are at a point where they just couldn’t do a heterosexual relationship.

If one deems homosexuality to be wrong, this means that there will be individuals who have had their right to form an intimate relationship taken away from them.

What would you do if someone told you that even though you loved someone, you were not allowed to be with them? If you have a partner, think about them. What would it be like to look upon your very relationship as something pathological, something wrong, something to be repressed, ignored? Think what it would be like to spend the rest of your life away from them, knowing that although you both love each other, you must live apart?

I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.

In the past I believed homosexuality was a sin. Naively I contributed to the Christian culture that preached that homosexuality was wrong, that people who ‘had it’ could repent and change. I now recognize that I contributed to oppression; I contributed to the culture that causes a lot of pain for many people, a lot of which I probably wasn’t aware of it. No more.

– Nathan van Rij.
16 17
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 6:34pm
dad4justice

“dad4justice, you are an evil man, I hope your kids get taken from you. I strongly suggest you consider suicide to end your hateful pain.”

What a lost the plot comment. I am just a normal guy with four kiwi kids who love me. Thanks to GOD.
15 11
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 6:41pm
Kris K

tristanb 6:30 pm,

What an evil, small minded biggot you are, Tristan.
To wish someone would lose their children, and then follow that up with suicide truly reveals that it is you who is EVIL.

And actually God (of the Bible) instituted marriage in the first place.

Your arrogance regarding His non existence shows that it is you who is the idiot.
And God agrees with me in this:

Psa 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Good luck for when you stand before Him – try explaining His non existence then.
12 14
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 6:42pm
Kris K

Anna Sewell 6:34 pm,

Go spread your lies elsewhere – and try some original thought for a change – anyone can cut and paste what others have said.
10 15
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 6:47pm
Anna Sewell

Kris K – you mean like what you did in your comment at 6:17 pm?

Pharisees like you are the reason people walk away from God.
10 16
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 6:52pm
malcolm

Go spread your lies elsewhere – and try some original thought for a change – anyone can cut and paste what others have said.

In fairness Kris, you frequently cut-n-paste scripture. I know you look upon the Bible as a reference book of absolute truths, however many of us here do not, so it’s a bit high-handed to assume your cut-n-pasting is superior.
11 4
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 7:15pm
Fletch

Anna, to answer some of your cut’n’paste job…

Where do you think the word ‘sodomy’ comes from? It is taken from Sodom and Gomorrah – that’s where it gets it’s name from . You can try to deny the Bible condemns homosexual relations until you’re blue in the face, but I’m sorry it does, and homosexuals will agree with me. Gay actor Ian McKellen even rips those pages out of Bibles when he visits hotels (Google it and you’ll see – he even mentioned in on Close Up, or Holmes as it was then). AT least he’s honest about what the Bible does say.

If one deems homosexuality to be wrong, this means that there will be individuals who have had their right to form an intimate relationship taken away from them.

Well, you could say the same about pedophiles who want a relationship with a young boy couldn’t you? Why should his right to have an intimate relationship be taken away if that is his ‘orientation’ and the boy is willing?

Andrei is right about marriage and procreation – argue about it all you like but gay people can’t have sex (sexual intercourse) with each other. They can fiddle with each others’ organs, but that’s not sex.

On December 6th 2004, the United Nations General Assembly commemorated the 10th anniversary of the International Year of the Family, by adopting the Doha Declaration’s resolution on strengthening the family. The Doha Declaration stated, among other things, that:

* All governments, international organisations and members of civil society at all levels should take action to protect the family.
* The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the widest possible protection and assistance by society and the State.
* That governments uphold, preserve and defend the institution of marriage;

Real Women of Canada’s Jan/Feb 2005 Reality newsletter pointed out that, despite the unanimous support of 149 countries present to ratify the Doha Declaration December 6, there were 14 (absent) dissenters, including Canada and the European Union. I believe NZ (shamefully) was one of those countries.
9 7
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 7:22pm
kelsey

And they were founded upon Christianity. As we more fully embrace atheism then the “misery and hurt” increase accordingly.

Any evidence of this? Any at all? Even if it were true (it’s not) it still says nothing about the truth value of the sky fairy and his zombie son.
7 9
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 7:32pm
kiki

The religions from the middle east were the original cut and pastes.
10 5
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 7:38pm
big bruv

D4J

“Elijah – I help homosexuals recover to become normal again.”

Of all the dumb things you have said (and there are numerous examples) that would have to top the list.
17 14
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 8:02pm
CharlieBrown

I see the bigotted, narrowminded, judgemental christians have started doing their usual attacking rants now. We’re all free to develop our own relationship with God, and if you believe others behaviour is wrong in Gods eyes then so be it. But you people that are against freedom of choice, regardless of the personal nature of that choice and the effect it has on you, all in the name of the bible should go to Saudi Arabia. They have a religious theocracy there, apart from the multiple wives thing, your values would go down pretty well there. Alternatively you could put that energy into inventing a time machine and going back to the dark ages of church rule you so long for.

I wish these people would stop preaching their hate and bigotry in the name of Christians. You are nothing more than stupid bigots.
9 8
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 8:08pm
dad4justice

Hey big blouse get fucking treatment for your demented fixation with me you cowardly slimeball. Be a real man and front me face to face you strange creep. What a bored life you must lead. Get a grip.
6 14
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 8:12pm
Kris K

Malcolm 7:15 pm,

In fairness Kris, you frequently cut-n-paste scripture. I know you look upon the Bible as a reference book of absolute truths, however many of us here do not, so it’s a bit high-handed to assume your cut-n-pasting is superior.

And in fairness, Malcolm, I usually expound what the scriptures say as well – so that you and others might better understand the truths of God contained therein.

On the short time Anna Sewell has been with us I have seen her on numerous occassions ‘cut and paste’ without even a comment on her part at all. While debate may involve sourcing information to support your views, Anna just cuts and pastes and adds no original thought. She may as well just put up a link and leave it at that.
Her 6:34 pm c&p is atypical of her contributions so far.

I know you like to play devil’s advocate on occassion, Malcolm, but as you say; fair’s fair.
5 10
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 8:19pm
Dave001

D4J – what a tosser

No wonder your wife left you and wont let you see your kids, I wouldn’t let you see your kids.
Given your demented rants I’d say you’re probably a closet homosexual the sooner you realise it the better. Its probably the reason your wife did leave you and take the kids. she probably realised you weren’t going to be happy until you met the man of you dreams.
10 18
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 8:25pm
smfj

d4j, I found your claim of helping making gay people normal pretty ridiculous. I’ve never felt better and more normal than since I came out as homosexual.

Queer issues need to be talked about at suicide prevention conferences. A fifth of youth identifying as homo- or bi-sexual have tried to commit suicide (a third of them have considered it) and about half have harmed themselves (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/2987987/Suicide-risk-for-gay-bisexual-youth). If it wasn’t being talked about at this convention then good on those people who hijacked it, it’s a serious issue.

Also, can we not take words that have been translated a billion different times into a different language with different ideas. Unless you are fluent in Hebrew and Ancient Greek and know all about their culture and social climate you can’t fully explain these ideas. I’ve actually already written about this, http://www.salient.org.nz/features/this-is-for-my-fundies
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 8:25pm
Kris K

Anna Sewell 6:52 pm,

Kris K – you mean like what you did in your comment at 6:17 pm?
Pharisees like you are the reason people walk away from God.

I’m sure you don’t need me as an excuse, Anna.

If you added original thought to your c&p jobs you would at least have some credibility around here – the fact that you don’t means you’re just filling a vacuum – boring!
6 9
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 8:26pm
Kris K

Dave001 8:25 pm,

D4J … Given your demented rants I’d say you’re probably a closet homosexual the sooner you realise it the better. Its probably the reason your wife did leave you and take the kids. she probably realised you weren’t going to be happy until you met the man of you dreams.

Another ‘newbee’ making unsubstantiated assertions and attacking someones character.
Why don’t you cretins go away and come back when you’re able to grow some facial hair?
Immature boys playing at being ‘men’.
9 12
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 8:33pm
dad4justice

Dave 101 – I have my children you festering nutjob. WOW big blouse has some odd mates. Time to go and enjoy the company of some REAL folks. Keyboard cowards are so tough. NOT !
7 12
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 8:35pm
andrei

Oh dear – sanity has prevailed in New Jersey, they have just voted down GAY MARRIAGE
which means they aren’t as brain addled as I thought in the Garden State.
13 8
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 8:44pm
Dave001

D4J – You’re allowed access to children? No wonder society is going down hill fast. BTW what exactly is a “festering nutjob”?
7 15
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 8:47pm
Anna Sewell

Kris K – here are a few more cut and pastes directed at you:

Matthew 7:1-5 Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

Matthew 23:27, 28 Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

Romans 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
10 9
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2010 8:47pm

More comments:

1
2
›

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Best Places to Live

General Debate 9 January 2009 »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

Justice in Brazil
No Right Turn
"Seymour is only doing openly what M?ori nationalists and their Pakeha allies have been doing, quietly for the past 50 years."
Not PC
Daily review 22/11/2024
The Standard
Do the KCs believe in democracy
Utopia
More young offenders will get boot camp, bus drivers will get some protection – and there’s relief for southern farmers
Point of Order
Your Cheatin’ Ballot III: Pennsylvania Right Now
No Minister
Sowell says
Hompaddock
New Zealand government urged to back ICC arrest warrants for Israeli leaders without equivocation
The Daily Blog
The transgender agenda sunk Kamala
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
What does “reciprocity” mean in New Zealand laws?
Croaking Cassandra
A Day of Reckoning
NZCPR
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on the US elections.
Kiwipolitico
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d

Share this:

Like this: