General Debate 3 January 2014

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment201

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (201)

Login to comment or vote

Manolo

End of the year love Muslim-style: http://news.msn.co.nz/worldnews/8778436/deadly-blasts-hit-mogadishu-hotel
6 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 12:13pm
Pete George

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

Would that provide sufficient superiority?
2 6
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 12:21pm
Fletch

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

Marriage, love, sex and children cannot be separated. During Catholic marriage vows, the priest asks the couple if they will be open to any children (Can. 1101 §2). It is part of their vows and a duty of Christian marriage.
6 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 12:21pm
Lucia Maria

Ryan,

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

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

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

link: What is Marriage?
5 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 12:23pm
Pete George

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

It seems more than a bit odd that a church that puts so much emphasis on having children insists that priest and nuns never have any.
3 11
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 12:23pm
Ryan Sproull

Perhaps this is aposite:

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

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

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

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

The closest you’ve come to a relevant argument is the claim that marriage is by definition about sex and procreation. I disagree, but then I also think that cultural institutions change over time. You may believe that some such things are immutable – that marriage is about sex and procreation in the same way as water is about hydrogen and oxygen.
4 4
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 12:26pm
J Bloggs

Lucia Maria – you mean what marriage has been understood to be for centuries by one specific sect of one religious belief system, as opposed to a universably applicable definition suitable for a pluralistic, secular modern society.
3 6
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 12:29pm
Ryan Sproull

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

Exactly so, Lucia, though I would not use the term “revisionist”, which implies there’s some true history that’s being rewritten. It’s more a recognition that marriage has changed over time long before the “romantic committed love” definition became prevalent. For example, someone in Biblical times or many countries today might consider your non-polygamous definition of marriage to be revisionist.
4 5
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 12:30pm
Ryan Sproull

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

Fletch, democracies aren’t Catholic.
4 4
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 12:31pm
SGA

Fletch at 12:21 pm

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

I’m single, but it’s unlikely that I’d want to start raising children again (haven’t finished with the latest batch). Depending of the age of a prospective partner, it might not even be possible. Is marriage out of bounds for me?
2 4
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 12:33pm
Lucia Maria

Ryan,

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

True, they could. Or they might say, damn, that’s why I shouldn’t have multiple wives, it just never works out well! And those people always had the example of Adam, who only married to Eve. Even Jesus reorients marriage to be one man, one woman, without possibility of divorce, as it was in the beginning.
4 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 12:34pm
Ryan Sproull

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

Yeah, Lucia, we’re not going to make decisions about civil rights on the basis of the creation myths of a tribe of desert nomads 5000 years ago.
5 7
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 12:38pm
Pete George

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing Notions of Traditional Marriage
2 8
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 12:40pm
Lucia Maria

No, Ryan,

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

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

That view just happens to match what you consider a creation myth.
5 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 12:45pm
Reid

Would that provide sufficient superiority?

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

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

No I said it was about family and that connotes a lot more than mere sex and procreation which is like pretending the word life connotes a bunch of cells and a given timeframe. And it’s not my definition, it’s society’s. And it’s a self-evident truth, disguised only to those who don’t want to look at it and those people come into two categories: the seriously deluded (e.g. Pete) and the truly disingenuous. There isn’t any third.
3 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 12:45pm
Pete George

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

No it’s not. You, Fletch and Lucia have all claimed different definitions of marriage here. That’s just in one small blog community.
2 6
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 12:49pm
Ryan Sproull

No, Ryan,

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

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

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

It’ll match your creation myth when the perfect monogamous heterosexual marriage produces siblings who murder each other. Not the best model for family bliss.
2 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 12:56pm
Reid

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

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

From Lucia:

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

From Fletch:

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

Marriage, love, sex and children cannot be separated.

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

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

Normally a ‘model’ is the typical unit across all examples, rather than an aberration. Unless someone is being wilfully or ignorantly disingenuous.
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 12:58pm
Ryan Sproull

Lucia, your suggestion that the State legislates and/or advocates a particular kind of family arrangement to impose a particular kind of functional stability in society terrifies me.
2 5
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 12:59pm
Fletch

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

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

The Church does not mind couples practising natural family planning – spacing children out, etc- but artificial contraception is a no-no.
5 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 12:59pm
kowtow

Ryan S

…siblings who murder each other….

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

….but the cultural Marxists are doing a good job of creating division and hatred ,in the name of equality of course.
5 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 1:01pm
Pete George

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

It’s cute being called deluded by you 🙂
2 8
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 1:03pm
Fletch

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

Just to be clear, the above quote is not from me. I was quoting Ryan.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 1:03pm
Ryan Sproull

Ryan S

…siblings who murder each other….

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

Yes, that was my point. I’m not sure that the first family to raise a murderer is the model of perfect marriage we necessarily want to aspire to.
2 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 1:03pm
Reid

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

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

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

Yes that’s why I italicised it.

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

Pray cite them Pete.
2 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 1:04pm
Fletch

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

Where?
Both on the same page from what I can see.
5 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 1:05pm
Ryan Sproull

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

I was responding to Lucia’s use of Adam and Eve as the original family upon which we should base our own. Was “model” not the right word? Template or archetype, then. I’m sure you saw the point I was making, unless you’re being intentionally blah blah insert smarmy insult here.
2 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 1:07pm
Ryan Sproull

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

No, I’m quite honest in my objection to the State telling people how to arrange their personal lives. Social engineering, like what Lucia is advocating, is terrifying. She wants the State to tell people to have heterosexual monogamous marriages. What’s next? Telling us which religion to follow? What kind of art to make?
3 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 1:09pm
Pete George

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

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

but artificial contraception is a no-no.

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

The average age of first marriage in predominately Catholic countries like Italy and Irelend is 31-34. I suspect there may be a quite a few not authentic batchelorhoods and spinsterhoods.
2 5
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 1:10pm
Manolo

@Fletch: Why do you bother? Dunedin’s Oracle is never wrong and, if so, will never admit it.
He’s the sole owner of the truth. His solid convictions and firm principles say so.
6 4
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 1:11pm
Reid

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

Lucia’s post in full:

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

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

Disingenuous, isn’t it. I think you’ve established which category you’re in Ryan. And I’m guessing Pete still doesn’t get it, which confirms my original estimate of his category too. Well done guys. Try some honesty next time.
4 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 1:15pm
Lucia Maria

Pete doesn’t like my more religious definition of marriage, which many people fail to live up to.
5 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 1:17pm
Ryan Sproull

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

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

Hmm. Fair enough.

I apologise, Lucia. I should have stayed focused on my point, which was that we can’t base a democracy’s laws on one particular religion’s creation myths, rather than taking a cheap shot on the Cain and Abel thing. I was going for the funny.
6 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 1:18pm
Pete George

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

Of course it won’t suit everyone. For example in my second marriage there was no intent and little possibility of having children. However we have a stable relationship that is very supportive of our grandchildren, I hope you don’t think that’s too bad a thing.
3 8
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 1:29pm
Ryan Sproull

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

Sorry, I missed this.

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

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

(It fits into my definition because of their committed love.)
3 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 1:35pm
stephieboy

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

http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18
4 10
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 1:36pm
Reid

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

See? I told you Pete wouldn’t get it.

I mean it Pete. Get your delusion checked out by a trained professional before you hurt yourself. It’s that serious.
5 4
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 1:37pm
Reid

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

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

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

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

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

So you see your no-child example is merely a variant in the bell curve, it doesn’t invalidate the model, because you’re looking at shifting the mass toward one or the other extreme, over time, in a way in which people don’t even notice they’re being shifted.
4 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 1:50pm
Ryan Sproull

Reid,

That seems to me a perfectly sound justification for the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage doesn’t invalidate the model, because it’s a variant in the bell curve – an approximation of an admittedly fuzzily defined social convention.
4 4
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 1:55pm
Reid

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

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

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

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

No.

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

Get it?

Probably not, I know.

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

Get it now?

I hope so Ryan. I know Pete still won’t, but I sure hope you do.
5 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 2:06pm
SGA

The standard bell curve is most useful as a model for continuous dimensions (speed, height, IQ, number of children in a family). For the multi-dimensional, categorical distinctions under discussion, children vs no-children, mixed- versus same-sex, it’s not particularly useful, even as an analogy.
4 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 2:16pm
MH

It’s always the clergy that rings the bell in the end even as it diminishes, it tolls for thee.
2 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 2:27pm
Reid

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

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

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

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

So it is particularly useful, as an analogy because that’s precisely what they are doing.
2 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 2:32pm
Ryan Sproull

Reid,

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

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

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

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

So what I’m asking is not about society or social engineering or whatever – I’m asking about how you personally reconcile those two assertions which seem, on the surface, to be contradictory.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 2:34pm
Reid

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

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

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

But if you’re happy with the social construct of family becoming conflated with sex, then I suggest you should examine yourself because that’s a great danger to society as we know it and it’s letting your grandchildren in for a hellish existence. However if you think that’s OK then fine, that’s your choice, but permit me to disagree. As long as you fully understand what your position is letting your grandchildren and everyone else’s in for and see my 2:32 if any of that is unclear.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 2:50pm
nasska

Reid

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

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

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

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

You are surely overstating a problem which hardly exists except in the head space of a few Godwhacks who have got their noses out of joint over bugger all.
3 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 2:53pm
MH

so then there is a good chances of having someones arranged gay marriage annulled ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 2:58pm
Reid

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

So you can call it bugger all if you want mate, but wait thirty years then let me know.
2 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 3:01pm
Ryan Sproull

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fortunately, I have said no such thing, so you needn’t worry about it.
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 3:21pm
RichardX

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

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

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

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

Who are “the evil ones”
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 3:23pm
Steve (North Shore)

Time for the RIP tool to get rid of some horse shit
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 3:32pm
Reid

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

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

Who are “the evil ones

That answer varies depending on how much you know about them Richard. How much do you know about them?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 3:40pm
RichardX

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

Do you agree with the quote you posted?

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

Assume I know nothing as so far it is nothing but a phrase you have used for which I sought clarification
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 3:51pm
Reid

Do you agree with the quote you posted?

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

Assume I know nothing

OK, have a look at my 10:53 and click the link and do some research into that. That’ll give you a start.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 4:09pm
Ryan Sproull

Richard,

Here’s one response to your question that’s popular in some Christian circles these days – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 4:11pm
RichardX

Thanks Ryan
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 4:13pm
Reid

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

Richard bear in mind dispensationalism is widely discredited in other Christian circles. Be careful.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 4:15pm
Pete George

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

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

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

An interesting critique of Marcuse:

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

Ironically some here seem to want to throw off “the vexatious authority of logic, mathematics, and the empirical sciences”.
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 4:37pm
Ryan Sproull

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please, just yes/no answers to each of those four questions. Feel free to answer yes to all of them if you disagree with me about their logical inconsistency.
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 4:39pm
Ryan Sproull

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

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

Fucking hell, Reid.

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

This is great, Reid. I’m learning so much about the Frankfurt School.
4 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 4:46pm
wikiriwhis business

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

Stephie Boy

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

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

Engineers with decades of experience also testified to the same.
1 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 4:53pm
Gulag1917

Richard Dawkins: “The liberal intelligentsia of Western countries is betraying itself where Islam is concerned”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/01/richard-dawkins-the-liberal-intelligentsia-of-western-countries-is-betraying-itself-where-islam-is-c.html
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 4:55pm
Reid

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

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

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

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

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

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

At last your education begins Ryan. BTW, you do realise don’t you the difference between Shephardic and Khazarian jews? That’s very important.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 5:05pm
Ryan Sproull

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

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

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

But that is what I have been asking. Over and over. Is for what you think about it, not what you think other people think about it.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 5:19pm
cha

Fucking hell, Reid.

Well you did pick the scab.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 5:27pm
Reid

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

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

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

So that’s my opinion Ryan on how the law should be structured, I fail to understand how your questions would have elicited that, but I trust you now understand. Although I’m pretty sure you already knew all of that, anyway.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 5:29pm
Pete George

There’s a major contradiction.

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

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

You can’t have it both ways Reid. Either it’s just a word or not.
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 5:37pm
Ryan Sproull

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

It is because this is your stated position that I am interested in your answers to those four yes/no questions.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 5:40pm
J Bloggs

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

No, it’s snobbery. It’s “how dare THOSE people use OUR word to refer to their legally identical relationship”
3 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 5:41pm
Ryan Sproull

Also, just quickly, Reid, can you confirm that you don’t actually share the views of that white-supremacist flyer you linked to? I’m guessing you quickly Googled “frankfurt school conspiracy” and picked the likeliest looking link from the first page of results?
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 5:46pm
TimG_Oz

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

Reid likes anything that supports his wacky conspiracy theories. I can’t be assed reading all the BS, but it appears that he is stating that Homosexual Rights movement was started by “pretend” Jews under the control of some Satanic power, like all the other “evil” things in the world…
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 5:52pm
Reid

There’s a major contradiction.

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

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

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

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

No. Why do you ask?

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. Unrequested elucidation. Because they’re straight and not gay, they’re not perverting the social construct. However on the bell curve of all marriages aka families, they are an outlier, since most marriages aka families, have children.
1 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 6:01pm
Reid

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

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

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

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

Afraid not J. If it were I wouldn’t mind. Read todays posts on it, you might learn something.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 6:04pm
Ryan Sproull

Okay, thanks for your answers, Reid.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 6:05pm
TimG_Oz

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

Read the Wiki – one of the items basically says “Even if it were true .. so what”.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 6:13pm
Reid

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

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

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

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

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

Tim I’ll read that wiki if you’ll do the same with mine then we can discuss both. And bear in mind a “referenced summary of facts” is your opinion
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 6:16pm
cha

It’s the same old Tim, disgusting.

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

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/10/labour_looking_at_quotas_for_everything.html#comment-1224827
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 6:20pm
TimG_Oz

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

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

Anyway, I’m outta here. Enjoy the weekend people.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 6:27pm
Ryan Sproull

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

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

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

I think my eyebrows would be no less raised by the diatribe if it was peppered by [CHINESE] or [MAORI] or [RED-HEADED].
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 6:27pm
SGA

Ryan Sproull at 6:27 pm

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

Finally had a quick look. Most disturbing was the opening photo – Gene Simmons of KISS is part of the conspiracy! Yes, he is [JEWISH].
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 7:43pm
Reid

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

http://iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 7:43pm
Harriet

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

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

The government no longer holds the view that we should create good men. Anything goes now. And suicide of male fathers is horrendously high. – due to feminism – the governments ‘functional stability in society’ programme.
1 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 7:57pm
nasska

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

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

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

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

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

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

“No!” screams the director. “You idiot! You forgot the rose!”
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 8:00pm
Johnboy

And I thought he would be carrying a can of sardines. 🙂
1 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 8:03pm
nasska

It’s gone too quiet. 🙂

Ref: https://www.dropbox.com/s/zuk22si37a15ki4/Faith%2023.jpg
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 8:07pm
Johnboy

Never been the same since Red moved on nasska.
1 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 8:08pm
nasska

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

Justin Bieber is following him. 🙂
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 8:13pm
Johnboy

I miss Dennis and Kea as well nasska….what news of them? 🙂
1 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 8:15pm
Lucia Maria

Harriet,

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

I have to look back through my history, that’s kinda scary for me given everything I read!
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 8:16pm
Johnboy

Certainly wasn’t Australia or NZ in the 60’s and 70’s Lucia! 🙂
0 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 8:18pm
nasska

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

Hopefully he lasts a little longer before getting his feathers ruffled this time round. 🙂
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 8:19pm
Johnboy

It’s tough for us three time losers to adapt to the rules nasska. 🙂
1 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 8:22pm
cha

Do the ewes align themselves JB?.

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Blog/2014/01/02/Dogs-align-themselves-with-Earths-magnetic-field-when-it-comes-time-to-poop/8781388679392/
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 8:28pm
nasska

Mythbusters would have a field day with that cha….I’ve got eight dogs at the moment & I reckon that they can crap on demand at all points of the compass. 🙂
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 8:37pm
cha

We’re down to two and I’m going to be watching their ablutions like a hawk.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 8:41pm
Harriet

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

Bored with your other fetishes Cha? 😎
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 9:17pm
cha

If they had tits….
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 3, 2014 9:23pm
Reid

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_ZiVRedU-4
1 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 4, 2014 12:08am
axeman

Serious questions need to be asked of the Ship of Fools

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03SWGkxt72A
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 4, 2014 2:15am
SPC

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

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11180931
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 4, 2014 2:52am

More comments:

‹
1
2
3
›

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« A damning critique of the so called Living Wage

I hope CYF has removed the kids »

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
A Written New Zealand Constitution?
No Minister
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
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
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