General Debate 8 December 2012

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment153

Uncategorized

Comments (153)

Login to comment or vote

Harriet

Pete George#

“…..What we should have is marriage equality, so that everyone of the determined age should have equal rights to get married with another person. It’s quite simple….’

Simple? Then tell us what marriage is Pete -not what you think it is, but what it is – so that gays can then ‘get’ married.

What are they actually going to get Pete? Hetro sex? kids of their own? or are these not part of ‘marriage’ Pete?

There is no such thing as ‘marriage equality’ when gays have relationships which in no way reflect Marriage Pete.-

“It is metaphysically impossible. So to think is a logical fallacy; so to speak is semantic nonsense.”…….“Without such essential properties as sex that is compatible and complementary, an alleged marriage simply is not marriage at all. Without this, the relationship might be beautiful and wonderful socially or even domestically — but it is not marriage.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 6:37pm
bhudson

The insight that pair bonds make little sense, and uniquely answer to no human need, apart from reproductive‐type union merely underscores the conclusions for which we have argued

But marriage serves no reproductive-type need. If that were to be true then reproduction and, indeed, child-rearing would be impossible outside of marriage. That is, self-evidently, not the case.

Your “thought experiment” reinforces that marriage does not serve a need Harriet. There is no needs-based argument as to why marriage should be only between a man and a woman.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 6:37pm
bhudson

Hetro sex? kids of their own? or are these not part of ‘marriage’ Pete?

No, they’re not. They have absolutely nothing to do with marriage. Sex, of any kind, and children are completely incidental to the union of marriage.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 6:39pm
Harriet

“….There is no needs-based argument as to why marriage should be only between a man and a woman…….” “…Sex, of any kind, and children are completely incidental to the union of marriage….”

Crap – and you know that – as you have just read this [below] at 6:20 – you replied!

“….Almost every culture in every time and place has had some institution that resembles what we know as marriage. But imagine that human beings reproduced asexually and that human offspring were self‐sufficient. In that case, would any culture have developed an institution anything like what we know as marriage? It seems clear that the answer is no….”

Hudson – first you have to understand what marriage IS before you can make an arguement for or against gay marriage.

Marriage has always been about hetrosexual sex and children, as described above, – sex and children IS FUNDAMENTAL to what marriage IS!

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/marriage/mf0139.htm
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 7:07pm
Manolo

Violent terrorists and fanatics coalesce:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/767a3fec-4064-11e2-8f90-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2ERDL5dXn
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 7:08pm
Manolo

An original interpretation of “justice”: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/07/michigan-judge-in-nude-picture-scandal-under-fire-for-impregnating-witness/

Well, maybe of the carnal type.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 7:17pm
Pete George

Marriage has always been about hetrosexual sex and children…

sex and children IS FUNDAMENTAL to what marriage IS!

Can you show any proof of this? That latter is obviously not the case. I got married with no intention and no capability of having children.

Marriage and unions have varied over time in different societies.

Marriage laws refer to the legal requirements which determine the validity of a marriage, which vary considerably between countries.

In the past it has often involved a man taking virtual ownership over a woman, but in Western culture that’s no longer the case (some men still think it should still give them total rights over their wife but there’s no legal basis for that).

It is believed that same-sex unions were celebrated in Ancient Greece and Rome, some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history

Maybe someone can prove otherwise, but I’ve never seen that done.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 7:24pm
Pete George

To clarify, in the above comment I was referring to my second marriage.

The first time I got married I was capable of having children but children and sex were not a part of the marriage arrangement at all. A sexual relationship was already well established and marriage had no effect on that, and there were no plans or expectations of children.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 7:31pm
Harriet

Pete#

“….’Marriage has always been about hetrosexual sex and children’…is there any proof of this?….”

“….Almost every culture in every time and place has had some institution that resembles what we know as marriage. But imagine that human beings reproduced asexually and that human offspring were self‐sufficient. In that case, would any culture have developed an institution anything like what we know as marriage? It seems clear that the answer is no….”

“…I got married with no intention and no capability of having children….” the link I listed also explains that position.

“….Marriage laws refer to the legal requirements which determine the validity of a marriage, which vary considerably between countries….”

It is generally accepted in law that ‘coitus’ validates a marriage. That is also at the link.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 8:12pm
Yvette

Why would the words ‘marriage’ or ‘married’ change?
In the situation where I observe to a friend “That’s Steve – he’s married” and the friend then sees Steve’s partner is Bruce, the friend will say “Oh, a gay-marriage – why didn’t you say that – a same-sex marriage?”
‘Marriage’ will still mean marriage, until someone needs to explain the arrangement further.
So deal with it. It probably won’t be the end of the whole fucking universe.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 8:24pm
Pete George

It is generally accepted in law that ‘coitus’ validates a marriage.

As far as I’m aware two signatures validates a marriage in law.

Show me where coitus is any factor in the law. I’ve just text searched the Marriage Act 1955 and there are no hits i in fact a search of the whole legislation site returns zero hits on coitus.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 8:32pm
Viking2

More on that tax ruling that accomodation allowances require taxing with PAYE. Now this is funny. I can see the Cabinet rushing to change the Law .Wonder if the Revenue Minister dreamed this up.

Under the new rules and retrospective. haha.
by Chris_J | 08 Dec 12, 11:16am

So Ministers provided with a Ministerial Home for the past four years which would have had a market rent of $80,000PA need to back pay $26,400 for each year so about $105,000 plus of course the ongoing $500pw extra tax…

I can see Parliament overturning this silly ruling in no time!!!!!! (Or maybe just an exemption for politicians???)

Login or register to post comments

by Wolly | 08 Dec 12, 12:01pm

No Chris, the Ministers will not have to pay the back taxes..it only to applies to workers!
Clearly the IRD have taken Bills worries about falling tax theft to heart….the chch rebuild is just too good a target not to steal as much from all involved as possible…with gst on top.
Up will go the rebuild cost by the amount stolen by the IRD and handed to Bill and John to buy votes with….wonderful move….
Let’s see how many skilled Kiwi change their minds about relocating to a freezing hut near chch for months at a time to help gun nail the joint back together.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 8:40pm
Viking2

The Day the Penis asked for a Raise

I, the Penis, hereby request a raise in salary for the following reasons:
I do physical labour…
I work at great depths…
I plunge headfirst into everything I do…
I do not get weekends or public holidays off…
I work in a damp environment.
I work in a dark workplace that has poor ventilation..
I work in high temperatures…
My work exposes me to contagious diseases.
Sincerely,

P. Niss

The Response
Dear Penis:
After assessing your request, and considering the arguments you have raised, the administration rejects your request for the following reasons:
You do not work 8 hours straight…
You fall asleep after brief work periods.
You do not always follow the orders of the management team.
You do not stay in your designated area and are often seen visiting other locations.
You do not take initiative – you need to be pressured and stimulated in order to start working.
You leave the workplace rather messy at the end of your shift.
You don’t always observe necessary safety regulations, such as wearing the
correct protective clothing.
You will retire well before you are 65.
You are unable to work double shifts.
You sometimes leave your designated work area before you have completed the assigned task..
And if that were not all, you have been seen constantly entering and exiting the workplace carrying two suspicious-looking bags.
Sincerely,

V. Gina
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 8:42pm
Viking2

When you are over sixty who gives a damn?

This asshole looked at my beer belly last night and sarcastically said, “Is that Corona or Bud?”
I said, “There’s a tap underneath; taste it and find out.”

************

I was talking to a girl in the bar last night.
She said, “If you lost a few pounds, had a shave and got your hair cut, you’d look all right.”
I said, “If I did that, I’d be talking to your friends over there instead of you.”

*************
I was telling a girl in the pub about my ability to guess what day a woman was born just by feeling her boobs.
“Really” she said, “Go on then…try.”
After about thirty seconds of fondling she began to lose patience and said.
“Come on, what day was I born”?
I said, “Yesterday.”
************

I got caught taking a pee in the local swimming pool today.
The lifeguard shouted at me so loud, I nearly fell in.
*************
I went to the pub last night and saw a fat chick dancing on a table.
I said, “Nice legs.”
The girl giggled and said with a smile, “Do you really think so.”
I said “Definitely! Most tables would have collapsed by now. “
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 8:44pm
Viking2

Interesting Photo’s.

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/10/world-war-ii-after-the-war/100180/
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 9:01pm
RF

Viking2.

Just spilt my single malt. I enjoy your wit !!!

More please…..
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 9:08pm
Longknives

V2- Those WW2 photos are pretty mindblowing! Each one is a conversation piece….
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 9:11pm
Longknives

Photo #31- Jesus fucking Christ!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 9:16pm
Viking2

RF (498) Says:
December 8th, 2012 at 9:08 pm

Viking2.

Just spilt my single malt. I enjoy your wit !!

————————-
All over V Gina.
Thinks that will be my next incarnation when I need a new Name. 😆

Got an old mate who went to Muraroa on the navy boat. He’s basically stuffed and fills in his days sending me this stuff. Not always printable and some days cats and dog stuff. Over fills the mailbox of i don’t clean it out.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 9:18pm
Harriet

Pete George#

“…’It is generally accepted in law that ‘coitus’ validates a marriage.’ -Show me where coitus is any factor in the law. I’ve just text searched the Marriage Act 1955 and there are no hits i in fact a search of the whole legislation site returns zero hits on coitus….”

“….Indeed, in the common law tradition, only coitus (not anal or oral sex even between legally wed spouses) has been recognized as consummating a marriage….”

“…..It is also clear that having children is not necessary to being married; newlyweds do not become spouses only when their first child comes along. Anglo‐American legal tradition has for centuries regarded coitus, and not the conception or birth of a child, as the event that consummates a marriage. Furthermore, this tradition has never denied that childless marriages were true marriages…..”

Go and read the link in full Pete and you will then understand that if gays get ‘married’ – they won’t actually be ‘married’ because that is not what we already know of ‘as marriage’. Here again is ‘what we know as marriage’-

“….Almost every culture in every time and place has had some institution that resembles what we know as marriage. But imagine that human beings reproduced asexually and that human offspring were self‐sufficient. In that case, would any culture have developed an institution anything like what we know as marriage? It seems clear that the answer is no….”

Or in other words Pete – if at any point in time ALL humans were GAY we would not have what we know of as ‘Marriage’ – NOTHING LIKE IT WHATSOEVER! 😎

Gays can’t get ‘married’ pete as marriage is not representitive of gays!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 9:23pm
chiz

Fletch

The world’s leading expert on the history of homosexuality is Dr David Greenburg, a New York sociologist, who is gay himself and is the author of a 635 page academic study of homosexuality through the ages called “The Construction of Homosexuality”. It has been hailed within academic circles as the most “extensive and thorough” analysis of homosexuality ever published. And what does he say? That homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. He said he had “an obligation to the truth”. Greenburg looked at all recorded examples of homosexuality. Every single one, he wrote, could be traced back to sexual behaviour practice rather than an innate sexual identity.

So much for the “born that way” theory.

Greenberg’s book came out in 1988, that is nearly a quarter of a century ago – before most of the modern scientific research – and, judging from reviews, it conflates same-sex behaviour with same-sex orientation.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 9:29pm
Viking2

Yep 31 was the yanks of course but the Frogs continued right up to Lange’s time. 1973
Mates 66-67 and has been affected for quite a few years..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/07/france-polynesia-atolls-nuclear-tests

http://beforeitsnews.com/earthquakes/2012/08/leaked-report-raised-fears-of-radioactive-tsunami-if-mururoa-atoll-in-french-polynesia-collapses-2444084.html

A total of 41 atmospheric nuclear tests were conducted at Mururoa between 1966 and 1974.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/world/mururoa-atoll-could-collapse-report-kept-secret-for-2-years-277717.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 9:30pm
Ryan Sproull

Our modern conception of marriage did evolve from child-raising family structures in various cultures.

However, the simple fact that any one of us can easily imagine an infertile straight couple getting married and living together without having children until they die demonstrates that child-raising is no longer essential to what we consider to be marriage.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 9:32pm
mikenmild

There doesn’t seem to be much solid evidence that the Operation Grapple veterans were affected much by service near the Christmas Island tests in 1957-58, let alone the almost minuscule exposure that NZ sailors might have received in 1973 near Mururoa.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 9:36pm
bhudson

Crap – and you know that – as you have just read this [below] at 6:20 – you replied!

“….Almost every culture in every time and place has had some institution that resembles what we know as marriage. But imagine that human beings reproduced asexually and that human offspring were self‐sufficient. In that case, would any culture have developed an institution anything like what we know as marriage? It seems clear that the answer is no….”

So let us assume that human beings are reproduced sexually and that human offspring are not self-sufficient. How much is marriage required to bring these about?

Answer: Not at all.

There is no needs-based argument as to why marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 9:40pm
Longknives

I’m reading up on that Marshall Island test- fascinating! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads

“The most famous survivor was Pig 311, which was found swimming in the lagoon after the blast and was brought back to the National Zoo in Washington, D.C” Awesome!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 9:51pm
Harriet

bhudson#

“……There is no needs-based argument as to why marriage should only be between a man and a woman….”

1. Weakening Marriage

No one deliberates or acts in a vacuum. We all take cues (including cues as to what marriage is and what it requires of us) from cultural norms, which are shaped in part by the law. Indeed, revisionists themselves implicitly concede this point. Why else would they be dissatisfied with civil unions for samesex couples? Like us, they understand that the state’s favored conception of marriage matters because it affects society’s understanding of that institution.

In redefining marriage, the law would teach that marriage is fundamentally about adults’ emotional unions, not bodily union or children, with which marital norms are tightly intertwined. Since emotions can be inconstant, viewing marriage essentially as an emotional union would tend to increase marital instability – and it would blur the distinct value of friendship, which is a union of hearts and minds. Moreover, and more importantly, because there is no reason that primarily emotional unions any more than ordinary friendships in general should be permanent, exclusive, or limited to two, these norms of marriage would make less and less sense. Less able to understand the rationale for these marital norms, people would feel less bound to live by them. And less able to understand the value of marriage itself as a certain kind of union, even apart from the value of its emotional satisfactions, people would increasingly fail to see the intrinsic reasons they have for marrying or staying with a spouse absent consistently strong feeling.

In other words, a mistaken marriage policy tends to distort people’s understanding of the kind of relationship that spouses are to form and sustain. And that likely erodes people’s adherence to marital norms that are essential to the common good. As University of Calgary philosopher Elizabeth Brake, who supports legal recognition of relationships of any size, gender composition, and allocation of responsibilities, affirms, “marriage does not simply allow access to legal entitlements; it also allows partners to signal the importance of their relationship and to invoke social pressures on commitment.”

Of course, marriage policy could go bad – and already has – in many ways. Many of today’s public opponents of the revisionist view – for example, Maggie Gallagher, David Blankenhorn, the U.S. Catholic bishops – also opposed other legal changes detrimental to the conjugal conception of marriage. We are focusing here on the issue of same‐sex unions, not because it alone matters, but because it is the focus of a live debate whose results have wide implications for reforms to strengthen our marriage culture. Yes, social and legal developments have already worn the ties that bind spouses to something beyond themselves and thus more securely to each other. But recognizing same‐sex unions would mean cutting the last remaining threads. After all, underlying people’s adherence to the marital norms already in decline are the deep (if implicit) connections in their minds between marriage, bodily union, and children. Enshrining the revisionist view would not just wear down but tear out this foundation, and with it any basis for reversing other recent trends and restoring the many social benefits of a healthy marriage culture.

Those benefits redound to children and spouses alike. Because children fare best on most indicators of health and wellbeing when reared by their wedded biological parents, the further erosion of marital norms would adversely affect children, forcing the state to play a larger role in their health, education, and formation more generally. As for the adults, those in the poorest and most vulnerable sectors of society would be hit the hardest. But adults more generally would be harmed insofar as the weakening of social expectations supporting marriage would make it harder for them to abide by marital norms.

Given the marital relationship’s natural orientation to children, it is not surprising that, according to the best available sociological evidence, children fare best on virtually every indicator of wellbeing when reared by their wedded biological parents. Studies that control for other relevant factors, including poverty and even genetics, suggest that children reared in intact homes fare best on the following indices:

Educational achievement: literacy and graduation rates;

Emotional health: rates of anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and suicide;

Familial and sexual development: strong sense of identity, timing of onset of puberty, rates of teen and out‐of‐wedlock pregnancy, and rates of sexual abuse; and

Child and adult behavior: rates of aggression, attention deficit disorder, delinquency, and incarceration.

Consider the conclusions of the left‐leaning research institution Child Trends:

[R]esearch clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low‐conflict marriage. Children in single‐parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes. . . . There is thus value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents. . . .”[I]t is not simply the presence of two parents, . . . but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support children’s development.

According to another study, “[t]he advantage of marriage appears to exist primarily when the child is the biological offspring of both parents.” Recent literature reviews conducted by the Brookings Institution, the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, the Center for Law and Social Policy, and the Institute for American Values corroborate the importance of intact households for children.24
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 9:58pm
cha

Here’s an interactive map with the location of every bomb dropped on London from 7th October 1940 to 6th June 1941 during the blitz.

http://www.bombsight.org/#16/51.5013/-0.0892
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 10:05pm
bhudson

Harriet,

Firstly that piece is an opinion on what marriage should be, and an opinion on what would happen to marriage if the definition was changed.

It provides no needs-based evidence at all as to why marriage must be between a man and a woman.

To the extent that it tries to claim studies showing children benefiting from family structures with two biological parents, that is not an argument against same-sex marriage – it is an argument that only married couples should be allowed to breed.

Let’s see you change the lobbying to that then. Drop the opposition to same-sex marriage and instead focus your efforts on outlawing procreation and child rearing by those who are not married.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 10:08pm
bereal

Glancing through the above posts regarding marriage and yesterdays dissertation on anal sex from Ryan Sproull,

Ryan would get my vote as the sickest sadsack fuck posting on this blog.

Jeez, even Griff gets that. (appologies Griff, maybe your not such a bad bloke after all)

There is nothing in Ryans argument that would object to a marriage between a person and, say, a goldfish.

It is a recognised syndrome that deviants will work to undermine societies morals, lower natural standards,
in order to make their own deviant conduct seem acceptable.

You’ve got civil unions now Ryan,why can’t youjust be happy with that ?

Why do you feel the need to try and work toward changing honest God fearing peoples beliefs ?

i’ll leave you to go your sick, deviant way mate.
Leave me to go mine.

Fair enough ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 10:13pm
bereal

Jeez, and bhudson seems to be almost as sick as Ryan.

Why not just leave Marriage alone bhudson ?

What is the difference between a same sex civil union between two homos, and a conventional marriage
in the traditional sense ?

Just the descripton right

FYI i have a couple of gay friends who had a civil union a year or so ago and now refer to themselves as married.

Where’s the problem with that ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 10:30pm
UglyTruth

What is the difference between a same sex civil union between two homos, and a decent marriage
in the traditional sense ?

In a civil union the state has authority, but in a traditional marriage the husband has authority.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 10:35pm
Harriet

Hudson#

“……It provides no needs-based evidence at all as to why marriage must be between a man and a woman….To the extent that it tries to claim studies showing children benefiting from family structures with two biological parents, that is not an argument against same-sex marriage – it is an argument that only married couples should be allowed to breed…”

Now that you acknowledge that children benefit from Marriage we can move on –but firstly “…it is an argument that only married couples should be allowed to breed…” stop talking shit – no one has ever said that -anywhere!

2. Obscuring the Value of Opposite‐Sex Parenting As an Ideal

As we have seen in Part I.B, legally enshrining conjugal marriage socially reinforces the idea that the union of husband and wife is (as a rule and ideal) the most appropriate environment for the bearing and rearing of children – an ideal whose value is strongly corroborated by the best available social science. Note, moreover, that the need for adoption where the ideal is practically impossible is no argument for redefining civil marriage, a unified legal structure of incentives meant precisely to reinforce the ideal socially and practically – to minimize the need for alternative, case‐by‐case provisions.

If same‐sex partnerships were recognized as marriages, however, that ideal would be abolished from our law: no civil institution would any longer reinforce the notion that children need both a mother and father; that men and women on average bring different gifts to the parenting enterprise; and that boys and girls need and tend to benefit from fathers and mothers in different ways.

In that case, to the extent that some continued to regard marriage as crucially linked to children, the message would be sent that a household of two women or two men is, as a rule, just as appropriate a context for childrearing, so that it does not matter (even as a rule) whether children are reared by both their mother and their father, or by a parent of each sex at all.

On the other hand, to the extent that the connection between marriage and parenting is obscured more generally, as we think it would be eventually, no kind of arrangement would be proposed as an ideal.

But the currency of either view would significantly weaken the extent to which the social institution of marriage provided social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with their wives and children. And to the extent that children were not reared by both parents, they would be prone to suffer in the ways identified by social science.

In other words Hudson, gays are just another thing that is wrecking the institution that benefits children….or as you say in your words “…To the extent that it tries to claim studies showing children benefiting from family structures with two biological parents…”

The claims have just been supported.

BTW – I agree that private schools will only be for wealthy people if they loose more funding from the government, and that the poor kids will miss out from having the choice of a ‘generally’ better education. I too, would like to see vouchers introduced.

Do private schools operate to ‘best’ standards so the children are not prone to suffer in the ways identified by social science as damaging……like social pressure lowering standards? 😎
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 10:45pm
Ryan Sproull

Goodness, Bereal, someone’s a grumpy goose!

Glancing through the above posts regarding marriage and yesterdays dissertation on anal sex from Ryan Sproull,

Ryan would get my vote as the sickest sadsack fuck posting on this blog.

I kept things pretty clinical, Bereal, and limited purely to things relevant to my point and Harriet’s argument.

There is nothing in Ryans argument that would object to a marriage between a person and, say, a goldfish.

Bereal, if you have read my posts yesterday and today, you will have seen me repeatedly say that marriage is a loving commitment between two consenting adults. Is a goldfish a consenting adult? No. Read a bit more carefully (rather than this “glancing” business) before you write a rabid tirade.

It is a recognised syndrome that deviants will work to undermine societies morals, lower natural standards,
in order to make their own deviant conduct seem acceptable.

You’ve got civil unions now Ryan,why can’t youjust be happy with that ?

My wife and I have got marriage, actually, Bereal. It’s just that I want all of my fellow consenting-adult New Zealanders to be treated equally with me by the law.

Why do you feel the need to try and work toward changing honest God fearing peoples beliefs ?

Well, this all started with me applying a little critical reasoning to Harriet’s comments last night. I think my motivation was based around how she kept saying that gay people were idiotic, followed by smug smiley faces, and I have a condition where I absolutely have to demonstrate how stupid someone is when they’re smugly calling someone else stupid. So I started with her misuse of the word “compliment” and ended up with showing how her argument against anal sex suggests that human bodies were designed in such a way that plenty of straight couples shouldn’t have sex.

As for her being an “honest God-fearing person”, well, I don’t know. She swore at me when I suggested that she was referring to God, so I’m guessing maybe she’s not a God-fearing person at all. As for her honesty, I couldn’t speak to that.

i’ll leave you to go your sick, deviant way mate.
Leave me to go mine.

Fair enough ?

Mate, I don’t even know who you are. I don’t recall ever talking to you before. I’m pretty sure I don’t need your leave to go my way, and I wouldn’t have a clue how to stop you going yours. But I hope you have a very merry Christmas.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 10:50pm
Longknives

How the hell did St Paul’s not get bombed during the Blitz?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12016916
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 10:53pm
Longknives

“Ryan would get my vote as the sickest sadsack fuck posting on this blog.”

What worse than me Bereal?? I really hate those All Blacks…..lots!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 10:55pm
chiz

Ryan:But I hope you have a very merry Christmas.

Bereal’s been drinking again I suspect. Btw, Harriet is male.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 10:58pm
UglyTruth

It’s just that I want all of my fellow consenting-adult New Zealanders to be treated equally with me by the law.

Why should people who do not value civil government have to suffer the same loss in status as those married by licence?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 11:00pm
Griff

Actually beryl
I fully support the marriage of gay people or whatever as long as they are consenting adults.
You are quite welcome to marry a whole rugby team so far as I am concerned.
Where did I get this view from
From reading far right views by the sci-fi writer Heinlein when I was a kid
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 11:00pm
Ryan Sproull

So let us assume that human beings are reproduced sexually and that human offspring are not self-sufficient. How much is marriage required to bring these about?

Answer: Not at all.

There is no needs-based argument as to why marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

bhudson, I don’t think the argument is that marriage is necessary for procreation. The argument is, rather, that because marriage arose from child-raising family structures, and traditionally has been associated with bearing and raising children, it is therefore today still essential to the definition of marriage.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 11:01pm
Ryan Sproull

Bereal’s been drinking again I suspect. Btw, Harriet is male.

Cheers, Chiz. I’m afraid I’m hardly in a position to point fingers at people for getting drunk and talking crazy nonsense online. Three solid fingers pointing right back at me.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 11:02pm
Ryan Sproull

Why should people who do not value civil government have to suffer the same loss in status as those married by licence?

How do you mean, UglyTruth?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 11:03pm
UglyTruth

Ryan, what I mean is that marriage in a civil society involves getting permission from the state in the form of a licence.
No such permission is necessary or even relevant for people who are separate from that society.

Shouldn’t these two groups be treated differently?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 11:09pm
bereal

Ok Ryan, good effort @ 10.50

Here is the question, i hope you will try and address it.

You say you want your fellow New Zealanders to be treated equally with you by the law.

Tell us all how you see the difference under the law between your marriage and my gay friends civil union ?

If there is a legal advantage to one or the other in your mind, what is it ?

P.S.

Longknives, why do you HATE the All Blacks ?
FYI i don’t HATE anybody or anything. It’s counterproductive.

chiz, proved to be just a lightweight fuckwit airhead pillock.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 11:12pm
Ryan Sproull

Ryan, what I mean is that marriage in a civil society involves getting permission from the state in the form of a licence.
No such permission is necessary or even relevant for people who are separate from that society.

Shouldn’t these two groups be treated differently?

Can you explain who are the groups in this scenario? You’re not saying that gay New Zealanders are separate from civil society?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 11:17pm
UglyTruth

The two groups are those who are under the authority of NZ’s civil government (eg NZ citizens) and those who are not, eg Tainui.

Sexual orientation isn’t a factor in this argument, you could get gay people in both groups.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 11:23pm
Harriet

“……The argument is, rather, that because marriage arose from child-raising family structures, and traditionally has been associated with bearing and raising children, it is therefore today still essential to the definition of marriage….”

Marriage is to the benefit of children, as children and as adults, therefor to society, infinitly . Marriage is a standard. Nothing at all -or sameness- as a replacement for marriage, is not a standard. It is ordinary at best. Being ordinary is not an achievement or anything to aspire to. At best an existance. 😎
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 11:24pm
Ryan Sproull

Here is the question, i hope you will try and address it.

You say you want your fellow New Zealanders to be treated equally with you by the law.

Tell us all how you see the difference under the law between your marriage and my gay friends civil union ?

If there is a legal advantage to one or the other in your mind, what is it ?

Even in a situation where all of the rights were completely identical (including a revision of adoption laws, etc.), for my union with my wife to be called by the state “marriage” and your gay friends’ union to be called by the state “civil union” – for them to be called anything different at all – implies a judgement call by the state that it is not entitled to make.

And there’s some cultural weight to these terms too, built up over time. Gay New Zealanders are brought up in the same New Zealand society that I was – told, like me, that one of the goals in life is to find someone to share it with and marry them. I see no reason why they should not be able to share in the weight of this tradition that stretches so far back in the history of their culture.

And, sadly, there’s also weight around the denial by the state of the term “marriage” to same-sex unions. There are many people who believe that being gay is evil, either due to adherence to their religion or due to using their religion to justify their personal prejudices. And among those people, there are many who want their religious views to be imposed on everyone via the machinery of the state. Those are the people who opposed the Homosexual Reform Act in the ’80s, and today they oppose the application by the state of the term “marriage” to same-sex unions.

That’s the main thing that an “identical rights with different names” situation does. It says to gay Kiwis, “We’ll give you all the same rights and powers, but you’re not a reaaaaaal marriage.” And the voice is from those people who think that gay people are evil because of their religions, and they’re speaking it through the megaphone of the state. And I don’t think the state should be used to impose some religions’ views on everyone.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 11:36pm
UglyTruth

And I don’t think the state should be used to impose some religions’ views on everyone.

The facts is that religious ideas are promoted by the state via the Westminster system, which has its origins in Christian tradition. These ideas are not limited to the rejection of same-sex marriages, the idea that man-made law should be universally applied is fundamentally a religious doctrine.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2012 11:45pm
bereal

O.K. Ryan @11.36 good answer.

You say that by calling one a marriage and another a civil union implies a judgement by the state
i can’t see how this means one is favoured over the other by the state in law.
They are different relationships and i can’t see how it discriminates against either one or other to call them by
different names.

Lets agree with the fact that gays do now have equal rights under the law in NZ
no probleemo from me.

But two gays getting together is different than a marriage between a man and a woman.

So lets give it a different name.

Where is your problem with that ?

G’nite, and good luck to your family.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 12:08am
Ryan Sproull

You say that by calling one a marriage and another a civil union implies a judgement by the state
i can’t see how this means one is favoured over the other by the state in law.
They are different relationships and i can’t see how it discriminates against either one or other to call them by
different names.

Lets agree with the fact that gays do now have equal rights under the law in NZ
no probleemo from me.

But two gays getting together is different than a marriage between a man and a woman.

So lets give it a different name.

Where is your problem with that ?

Two gays getting together is not different from a marriage between a man and a woman. They are both loving lifelong commitments by pairs of consenting adults. Sure, they can’t have natural children, but neither can infertile straight couples. LIke the infertile straight couple, they can adopt if they want. Like many fertile straight married couples, perhaps they’ll choose not to have kids.

There is no reason to give it a different name, so the insistence on giving it a different name implies that desire to have one’s religious or personal prejudices amplified through the state.

G’nite, and good luck to your family.

Cheers, have a good night.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 12:33am
Manolo

For Griff, firm believer to the bitter end:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=m5Bxo2wLT-s#!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 6:54am
bhudson

Now that you acknowledge that children benefit from Marriage we can move on

No Harriet, I said “to the extent that [the studies you referenced showing any correlation between good outcomes for children and two biological married parents.] That is not to say I agree with your premise that a household with married parents provides the best outcome for all, or even most, children.

but firstly “…it is an argument that only married couples should be allowed to breed…” stop talking shit – no one has ever said that -anywhere

Yes Harriet, you did. Right about here where you quoted the following words:

the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low‐conflict marriage. Children in single‐parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes.

Either that or you’re saying you’re comfortable with children having poor outcomes. Which rather undermines your argument for marriage to remain a man and a woman because it’s better for the children.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 7:59am

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« All I want for Christmas

Why not co-deputy PMs? »

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

"Seymour is only doing openly what M?ori nationalists and their Pakeha allies have been doing, quietly for the past 50 years."
Not PC
Barry Soper: The h?koi was M?ori Party's crowning glory
Breaking Views
Sowell says
Hompaddock
Seymour’s opponents need better arguments
Point of Order
Continuous Process Improvement
No Minister
New Zealand government urged to back ICC arrest warrants for Israeli leaders without equivocation
The Daily Blog
Popuphobia’s Javier Milei Problem
Utopia
Open mike 22/11/2024
The Standard
Drawn
No Right Turn
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
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
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