Family First Supports Marriage Equality

ŠĒ• Imperator Fish

Scott Yorke has found evidence that Family First actually supports Marriage Equality…you see they have 21 reasons why marriage matters and all of those can easily be appleied to same-sex marraige…making me wonder why Family First is opposed to marriage equality in the first place.

If marriage matters so much shouldn’t they be wanting as many people as possible to enjoy their 21 benefits of marriage…including gay people?

Family First has issued a snapshot listing 21 reasons why marriage matters.

For example:

  • Married men earn more money than do single men with similar education and job histories.
  • Married people, especially married men, have longer life expectancies than do otherwise similar singles.
  • Marriage is associated with better health and lower rates of injury, illness, and disability for both men and women.

So the more people that marry the better!

Even if we put aside those of the 21 reasons that apply only to children (and if we let gay couples adopt, many of those reasons would be valid), Family First’s own arguments show that any marriage is better than no marriage.

  • http://truebluenz.com/ Redbaiter

    Its not about “marriage equality.”

    Never has been. Never will be.

    This is just a propaganda term designed to show opponents in a bad light.

    • Caleb

      Civil unions give them equality under the law. 
      This is all that matters to non religious people, surely?
      No discrimination, just a distinction in terms.

      • Mike Hunt

        non religious people are actually just people caleb

      • Mitch

        Marriage pre-dates religion, Caleb.

      • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

        Civil Unions are not equal under the law with marriages. 

      • Gayguy

        Wrong. 

    • Gayguy

      Poor RB, out of step with truth. 

    • Rodger T

      Wa,wa ,sook ,sook………harden up Tinkerbell.

  • Random66

    Funny enough with all this debate starting and the anti sentiment toward any person with an opposing view to same sex marriage I walked into a clothing store yesterday which was geared for teenagers (purchasing for our children) and was shocked to see a sign saying; “There is no Truth – anything is permitted!”.¬† Clearly this is a dig at biblical truth, which could be debated forever by both sides, however ultimately we will all learn what the truth is, whatever it may be.¬† But to see this sign saying there is no truth is just a lie and is disturbing to see this message being given to our young.

    • Mike Hunt

      Freedom of speech is a real bitch isn’t it

      • Random66

        Not at all, people with a differing opinion to you just want this freedom to be a two way street.

      • Mike Hunt

        so put a sign up in your shop with your views on it!

        *fucksake*

    • Mitch

      God forbid the youth actually start thinking for themselves. Where does the Church get it’s money from then?

  • Blokeintakapuna

    “Married men live longer”… no it just seems that way..

    • The Real Fozzie

       Why do married men die before their wives, because they want to.

    • Rodger T

      Well, it is a life sentence .

  • http://nzconservative.blogspot.com Lucia Maria

    Applying a label to a relationship does not automatically confer the benefits of the institution on that relationship, if there is no possibility that that relationship could ever really be called a marriage.¬† It’s silly to even make the argument.

    • Mike Hunt

      good point

      time to make all marriages civil unions and remove any religious implication

    • Mitch

      And what ‘makes a marriage’, Lucia? A Catholic stamp of approval?

      • http://nzconservative.blogspot.com Lucia Maria

        Mitch, no.¬† A (baptised) man and woman make marriage together – the Church just recognises it. It’s basically the primordial sacrament, set up by God Himself when He made Adam and Eve.

      • Mike Hunt

        the proverbial invisible pink unicorn

      • Polish_pride

        Lucia Maria – In the not so humble opinion of the Catholic Church of course
        Unfortunately there are many unbaptised couples that are Married and Many couples who do not believe in God (or believe in another God) and do not believe in Adam and Eve that are married. 

      • Mitch

        Lucia: A couple of facts:

        1: Marriage pre-dates Christianity, and can be traced back as far as recorded history goes.

        2: Around 30% of this country is non-religious.

        That said, what exactly gives you the right, as a Catholic, to impose your set of rules upon those who don’t follow your religion, or any at all?

      • Magoo

        Mitch. Re: your comment below:

        ‘That said, what exactly gives you the right, as a Catholic, to impose your set of rules upon those who don’t follow your religion, or any at all?’

        According to that logic, what gives anyone the right to impose their rules on those who want polygamy, incest, beastiality, etc?

      • Mitch

        @99210a91cf0244e5fc8fbf22396d7879:disqus¬†Nobody here is arguing for that. We’re going to have to legalise polygamy, incest and bestiality before that is even an issue. If we adopt the ‘opening door’ argument here, then you’d probably have to say that inter-racial and inter-religious marriages need to be repeal. It can go both ways.
        As an aside, polygamy is quite normal in some cultures and religions, and incestual breeding and marriage is well documented among royal families of the world. Just look at the British Royals.

      • Random66

        Mitch, I respected your opinion yesterday in that you didn’t think opening the door on one issue would fling it wide open for other minority groups.¬† Well what do you think about this?¬† It seems they are trying to sneak or soften our view now on polyamorous relationships.

        http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/14411840/queer-avengers-reject-conservative-scaremongering/

      • Mike Hunt

        you really do hate¬†democracy¬†don’t you

      • Random66

        True democracy Mike is taking this to the people and letting them have a say, not just a select few with a mouthpiece.  So all for this to be presented as a binding referendum and will accept the outcome.  Bring it on.

    • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

      Lucia interesting your comments are written like they are fact yet millions of Christians disagree with the Catholic Church – aside from your priests willingness & obsession with buggering little boys, there is the fact that your version of your faith worships Mary (and recites rosary) which many other versions of Christianity consider to be blasphemy. Of course you will claim that you are merely honoring saints yet calling ordinary people used by God to do extraordinary things “saints” is definition of worship for many people.

      So if Christians cant all agree on how your own faith is meant to be executed then how can you expect those who dont believe at all to take you seriously. Seems to me you are far better off tidying up your own house (as in the Christian church as a whole….a misnomer I know, but you get what I mean) than judging everyone else.

      End of the day you have a right to your faith but do not expect that right to inhibit the freedoms of others who dont share the same views

    • Gayguy

      The problem is your argument is a religious one. Fewer and fewer kiwis are religious so your defense of marriage on religious grounds is pointless in the 21st century. 

      Also, more and more of the church is turning against your way of thinking and moving towards Jesus Christs way of thinking on this matter. 

      So you can stamp your feet, cross your arms and sulk as much as you like, but marriage for everyone is about to become a reality. No matter your bigoted anti christian views Lucia. 

  • guest

    Oh come on boys and girls….. marriage is like god, it doesn’t exist so it can be gay, straight whatever you want it to be

  • http://voakl.net/ Ben Ross

    And it seems a heterosexual couple could not get married in a church in the USA 
    http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-church-refuses-to-marry-black-couple-at-last-minute-20120730-237p7.html      

    Hmm the church might want to clean up its own against against heterosexuals before prying over against homosexuals

  • LesleyNZ

    The 21 reasons are absolutely valid and true. The word “marriage” should be for a male and female who get married – as it always has been. “Gay marriage” does not have the same meaning as heterosexual marriage. If gays want to be married call it something else.¬†Gays pinched the word “gay” for themselves – they don’t need to pinch the word “marriage” as well.¬†Have a competition to find the best word for “Homosexual Marriage”.

    • Mitch

      ‘Gay’, like ‘queer’, were originally derogatory terms – like ‘nigger’ is to an African person. Over time the homosexual community has adopted the word as a friendly term. The meaning of a word can change over time.

      • LesleyNZ

        “Gay” was used¬†in with conjunction¬†being happy and also someone’s name.

      • Mitch

        Yup – and before it was the acceptable term for a homosexual person, it was derogatory.

    • Rodger T

      LoL Lesley , I could hear the footstomp at my house.
      Pick your bottom lip up off the floor and get back to twitching the curtains.

  • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

    Proverbs 26:11 as a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly.

    Repeating yourself over & over doesnt mean your points have any more validity. No one in the anti gay marriage group has put up a credible argument.

    I am a late comer to the pro gay marriage group, primarily because I never gave it any thought. 

    Once I did, I came to the following rather obvious conclusions:

    1)Civil Union Act was separatist law that was a cowards way out of redefining the Marriage Act. It is a discriminatory piece of legislation in breach of the Bill of Rights.
    2) Marriage is between the State & the couple and has no religious basis whatsoever in the eyes of the law
    3) Gay celebrants & Ministers can already marry heterosexual couples. The fact that they cannot marry their own spouse is illogical, amoral & a breach of basic human rights
    4) Marriage is not the monopoly of the religious – never has been never will be
    5) Marriage is not synonymous with successful procreation – never has been never will be
    6) The definition of what makes a marriage is a personal and subjective thing that no church or religious person has any right to dictate
    7) If you feel that a same sex couple getting threatens the existence of your own marriage then you clearly have a crap marriage so skip the rush & sign up to divorceme.co.nz today. It must be a shallow and empty marriage to be so impact by people you are unlikely to ever know (it’s not like bigots become friends with gays is it!).

    And then there is ones I mentioned in the last post about CC:

    1) Homosexual sex is natural; strap-ons, oral & anal sex are not exclusive to same sex couples
    2) homosexuals are not pedophiles; the most common child predator is actually the white middle class heterosexual man…and dont get me started on Catholic priests.
    6) The bible/God does not say anything about same sex relationships being abomination: the verses most commonly used to state same sex attraction/relationships are sinful come from the book of Leviticus – an ancient code meant for the Jews or from Paul & Timothy who were horrified at the rape by heterosexual men of their male slaves. Nothing in the bible talks about same sex couples in an adult, loving, committed & consensual relationship. And even if the Bible did say something well then there is a whole host of things we should take literally: polygamy, marrying first cousins, slavery,”no one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord (8 Deut 23:1), eat locusts (OT), dont mix fibres (OT), cut your wife’s hand off if she helps you out in a fight (NT)…the list goes on

    So the only lies being told are by the bigots whose lives are so pathetic that they feel threatened by a small group of people who are wishing nothing more than to have society bestow upon them the same rights as everyone else.

    And it is for this reason that the majority will see to it that this Bill gets passed. Marriage is wonderful and we should be celebrating anyone who is prepared to sign on the dotted line & declare their commitment to another human being (for as long as they shall live) in a public forum. Anything that promotes consensual stable committed relationships is a good thing.

    • Random66

      ‘Marriage is wonderful and we should be celebrating anyone who is prepared to sign on the dotted line…’

      Where is the¬†moral line drawn though when respresenting the best interests of society?¬†¬†As¬†many have already said over the previous¬†days /weeks, is your line drawn¬†to just include for¬†same sex marriages or do we also celebrate when a man marries his sister or for that matter daughter (after all they love each other), or what about the family pet?¬† Maybe a man chooses to have two wives, surely that¬†should be celebrated as well.¬† The danger here is when you legalize the interests of one minority group where do you stop?¬† Based on your assertion we should celebrate ‘anyone who is prepared to sign on the dotted line’, gives me a grave view of what¬†our future as a society will look like¬†and I truely do not believe this anything goes mentaliity is in our childrens best interests.¬† It has been said that a soldier does not fight because he hates what is infront of him, but rather because he loves what is standing behind him.¬† I share the same view, I don’t hate those who wish same sex marraige, but I will stand for what I believe is in the best interests of my children.

      • Mitch

        This is a single issue, similar to other single rights issues such as a woman’s right to vote, mixed-race marriage, etc. Lumping gay marriage in with marrying a relative or dog is a scare-tactic that doesn’t work on anyone, it just exposes the root of why you’re opposed.¬†

        We already have civil unions for gay couples, it isn’t a massive moral leap to allow them to be legally married. You might have a point if we had civil unions for those in a relationship with their daughter or dog, but we don’t, and no matter how much you cry “where does it end?”, we never will.Around 60% of the country want same sex marriage to go ahead, and that number is only getting stronger. If you put the issue of incestuous marriage or mixed-species marriage to an opinion poll, you’d probably find around the same amount of support as you would for legalising child pornography.You need to be aware of the distinction here – while the gay community in New Zealand is a minority, those that support their right to marry are the majority now.¬†

      • Random66

        It would appear that it is your personal view that the buck stops here and that all these other what if’s are not gonna happen because you believe the percentage of public support is low.¬† That’s all good if in fact you could control the flow of change that inevitably will come, but you can’t, and others will come behind you with their own barrow to push and it may well be any of the examples I’ve suggested and this legislation will just ensure their battle for acceptance just got easier.¬† That’s the thing with subjectivity, all our lines are drawn different that’s why the only safe option is to have absolutes.

      • Mitch

        @Random66:disqus¬†¬†Okay, absolutes. How about an absolute line drawn at marriage being defined as a union between two consenting adults? A homosexual relationship is a consenting relationship between two adults, no different to heterosexual relationship. What happens under their sheets is as much the public’s business as what happens under yours or mine.

        I understand your side of the argument here, but each “what if” deserves it’s own debate.

      • Caleb

        Totally agree Random66.

      • Mike Hunt

        This is not a pickup joint Galeb

    • Luke

      Wow, lots of erroneous information in that post.

  • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

    Agreed Mitch. Your sexual orientation is part of your core. A desire to have sex with your sibling or child depends on your state of mind with your sexual orientation determining which gender you prefer. Big difference. You want to play that card then look at the statistics for incest and child molestation and you will find that heterosexual men & heterosexual people that are the main perpetrators.

    So the morality on this is a moot point. Gay marriage is an extension of something that is already legal, that has already been deemed to have no harm on anyone. It does hurt anyone nor does it impose of the rights of others. Which means unless you are have sexual issues yourself or are just a complete idiot, one should naturally assume that “anyone” means anyone in what is already a legal and consensual relationship.

    Things like incest & child molestation will never be legal because they cause obvious harm. 

    I find it interesting that the law has taken so long to recognise consensual same sex relationships yet, until 20 years ago, it assumed that a man could not rape his wife, or that if a girl was walking down the street in a short skirt she was “asking for it”.

    Thankfully society changes so in this case, the law just needs to catch up.

    • Random66

      You come on here looking for a fight by being antagonistic, rolling out I either have sexual issues or am a complete idiot because I dare to challenge something you say. No wonder people think twice before responding to you. You state Gay marriage is an extension of something already legal (civil union) and has been deemed to have no harm on anyone. It would appear the law made provision at the time to limit harm, whereby a civil union only extended to two consenting adults, it did not include for their ability to involve an unconsenting child, marriage of course would not have such limitations and this is why the debate remains strong. I made reference to your end statement because that pretty much summed up your view. As far as you making this a biblical debate I chose not to respond because to do so would hi-jack this thread and I have better manners than that.¬† You clearly don’t have teenagers otherwise you would appreciate how much society tries to influence them and as parents we are constantly helping them filter the pressures on them.

      • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

        Random you appear to be trying to grasp at some kind of moral high ground yet you are far from reaching it. My comments on this issue are no more antagonistic or inflammatory than anyone else’s, the difference is you & most of the commentators on here just dont like them. That’s fine. I didnt come on here to get approval, I came on here to¬†dispel the myths, assumptions and crazy that always comes out of the woodwork due to people reacting in fear & hate because they are faced with something they dont understand.

        If you expect people like me to play nice then provide valid reasons for your stance instead of merely jumping into the debate half-cocked whilst simultaneously throwing about straw man arguments. Doing so just undermines any chance you have of putting forward a credible point of view.Further, you didn’t use “anyone” because you felt it summed up my point of view, you used it as an in for your scaremongering. You were arguing the cliche overused & nonsensical ‘slippery slope’ argument which has no validity whatsoever. You may as well have said that gay marriage is on par with someone expecting to get married to their frying pan. It’s just BS.

        As for your ludicrous statement that “a civil union only extended to two consenting adults, it did not include for their ability to involve an unconsenting child, marriage of course would not have such limitations”. You make the perverse assumption that gay parents harm children and secondly the massive generalisation that gay couples dont already have children. There are plenty of gay parents in NZ and there will be more thanks to the adoption law changes. There is no research to quantify the claim that children of gay parents are more at -risk than children of heteros.

        Of course society influences children, but how much so depends on the values taught at home. Your children are at far greater risk at being harmed by your offensive inferences here than by a gay couple down the street who choose to unite in matrimony.

      • Random66

        Perhaps if you talked less and listened more your would hear what is being said.  I never said anything about gay people harming children, just infered their legal ability to adopt presently is restricted by lawmakers, not myself.  This of course would not be the case if they could marry.  I never said they would make good, bad or otherwise parents.  Get over yourself.  You appear to be the one that is trying to educate all us fools of what is right and what is not (long winded I might add).

      • Mitch

        @openid-107594:disqus¬†I’d only add that there ARE studies that show negative outcomes for children in LGBT parenting situations, but there are far more that indicate positive outcomes. The Wikipedia page on LGBT parenting is a really good start to get links for the various studies.

        @Random66:disqus What would you do if one of your teenagers came to you and told you that he or she was gay?

      • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

        Mitch – yes I have seen some of the studies that claim homosexuality has negative impacts on children, but I havent found them to have much substance. For a start data is limited.

        Random – if I am wrong about you I apologise.¬†I inferred that by your statement that gay marriage would mean no legal control over their right to have children, that you also felt they would be bad parents. I assumed this based on your previous comment where you implied gay marriage would not be in the best interests of your children and when you drew on the ‘slippery slope’ argument to try & validate your point.

        I am not sure if the insult lessens just because you dont think they would bad parents.

      • Random66

        Mitch, I would love them unconditionally as any mother should.¬† One thing we work really hard at in our home is to have no secrets and for all our children to know that no matter what they don’t walk alone – we are right there with them come what may (and yes I have a few more grey hairs for it).¬† I have said before my nephew is gay and I love him dearly, we talk often, laugh heaps and he is always a joy to shop with.¬† My children adore him and¬†even though he¬†knows as a christian I struggle with accepting his choice, he doesn’t for one second think I don’t love him.¬†

      • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

        “I would love them unconditionally as any mother should” but you would tell them they dont have the right to get married because that would impinge on other people’s children and lead to bestiality & incest being legalised? Isnt that stating you dont accept them as being the same as you by default? Love and acceptance are not always synonymous. But in order to love unconditionally one must both love and accept.

  • Travis Poulson

    This is the latest release from Colin Craig, take note those ignoramuses that repetitively make reference to him as a christian or church-goer.

    Sorry about the large paste, but I think it makes for some good reading and goes into some finer detail about his point of view:

    ”¬†Firstly I am not a churchgoer and am not making any religious argument about homosexuality. I know that some church teachings (both Christian and other religions) have strong moral stands on the matter but it‚Äôs probably best that they explain their view themselves.¬†

    I do of course support their right to have and express their view just as I support your right to have and express yours. 

    To summarise my view, marriage is a word (and legal institution) that has an existing meaning that is significant to New Zealanders for many reasons (cultural, traditional, religious, moral etc.). Given that most New Zealanders are stakeholders in the word and that it matters to them I think it entirely appropriate that the definition should be only be changed if supported by a referendum of New Zealanders which is what I am calling for.

    I would disagree with your view that there is no free choice regarding sexuality. The human genome project has studied exactly this issue and I quote ‚Äú.. sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations‚ÄĚ . Given that research studies consistently identify other predictive factors such as the influence of adult role models and environmental and event influences (such as for many homosexual men the instance of sexual abuse as a child) I think some people’s views of why people adopt a homosexual lifestyle might be rather too narrow. Still, good grounds for an intelligent debate.

    While I happily accept your word that you may not have observed negative impacts of homosexuality within families I assume that you will be familiar with the many studies that have been conducted that do quantify what some of these negative impacts are. 

    I am making the point that we do need to honestly debate these negative impacts given that the proposed law change will impact on adoption law. As just one example studies consistently show that homosexual males have a substantially shorter lifespan than heterosexual males. It usually comes in as about 10-20 years less (I am sure you can google this issue to get the facts but I recommend both the Canadian and Scandinavian studies as starting points as they were carried out by credible researchers and on a serious scale). I also recommend the research by Otago University if you are interested in some of the mental health issues as this study is the best and most extensive work done in New Zealand that I am aware of.

    To summarise my view around the adoption debate I hold the view that gender difference does matter and that role modelling from parents is the primary influence on child development. Given that adoption is about the state placing a child for life with parents we must consider seriously the negative outcomes of homosexual parenting that research has identified. For this reason, and because we already have so many great Mums and Dads ready to be adoptive parents, I support the current adoption law which is very restrictive in its criteria and mandates as its sole objective the best interests of the child. ”
    So sorry to those of you in the pro homosexual marriage camp, but you’ll have to rule religion out of your argument against him.¬†

    • Mitch

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#Misrepresentation_of_research_by_opponents_of_LGBT_rights
      From the Canadians that Colin mentions:In a 2006 statement the Canadian Psychological Association released an updated statement on their 2003 and 2005 conclusions, saying, “The CPA recognizes and appreciates that persons and institutions are entitled to their opinions and positions on this issue. However, CPA is concerned that some persons and institutions are mis-interpreting the findings of psychological research to support their positions, when their positions are more accurately based on other systems of belief or values.” The association drew attention to Herek‚Äôs extensive 2006 review of relevant literature, which concluded that the research on which opponents to marriage of same-sex couples rely, look at the functioning of children in intact families with heterosexual parents compared to those children raised by a single parent following divorce or death of a spouse. They do not include studies that compare the functioning of children raised by heterosexual couples with the functioning of children raised by same-sex couples. In this group of studies, any differences observed are more accurately attributable to the effects of death or divorce, and/or to the effects of living with a single parent, rather than to parents‚Äô sexual orientation. These studies do not tell us that the children of same-sex parents in an intact relationship fare worse than the children of opposite-sex parents in an intact relationship.

      • Travis Poulson

        Make of it what you want Mitch, I’m just throwing it up there for whomever wants to read it regardless of their stance.¬†

      • Mitch

        Yup. It’s just relevant – if Colin’s trying to use the study I’m thinking of, he’s misrepresenting their position.

    • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

      My mistake then, when reading about him during the election campaign I thought I had read he was Christian.

      Ok so that’s great. He doesnt rely on the misinterpretations of a 2000 year old book to back up his arguments.

      But he still makes some fairly wild generalisations that lack proper research & substance so I stand by what I have said previously.

      I will say that I agree in having a referendum as I believe, provided the questions are not ambiguous, that they are the best way to gage public opinion and are a good tool within a healthy democracy.

      But they are only worthwhile if the government is required to act on them. The cost a huge amount of money so unless they guarantee an outcome (change to the Marriage Act if the majority say yes) then I dont see the point. 

      • Travis Poulson


        My mistake then, when reading about him during the election campaign I thought I had read he was Christian.”

        He is, but doesn’t go to church, and his opinion isn’t based religion.

        re: referendums: are they really worth the waste of money? (on any topic) As long as they’re not binding I don’t see the point unless the law is changed to make it so. I cringe every time someone says the word, reminds me of the Greens obsession with inquiries: 2 great ways to flush taxpayers $ down the toilet. a Poll is cheaper than a non-binding referendum, and at least shows both sides (within a margin of error obviously) on any public debate.¬†

      • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

        he is christian…he conducts prayer and bible sessions at his companies…the result of which found him in the employment court…not he said he is not church going…that is quite different.

        I am not church going but am a christian….he is using politician weasel words and the fact that he is cosying up to Family First and other assorted nutbars shows that he is being a disingenuous weasel.

      • Travis Poulson

        Whaleoil¬†re:prayer and bible sessions at his companies,¬†didn’t know that. From the way he worded it as “Firstly I am not a churchgoer”¬†it¬†seemed to me he was implying he was what I would call a non practising christian.

      • Mitch

        Travis, did you not catch the big blow-up where he allegedly said (in the meeting that resulted in the employment court hearing) that being short (as in height) is a result of your ancestors sinning?

      • Travis Poulson

        Mitch: apparently not. Do tell. (or post link)

      • Mitch

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6876016/Colin-Craig-preached-shortness-a-sin-claim
        I won’t paste anything because Disqus tends to chop up pasted text badly. Anyhow, decide for yourself whether you think he said it.

      • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

        Ok I retract my retraction – Colin Craig is in fact a Christian bigot.

        As for¬†¬†“his opinion isn’t based religion” – given his faith is a core part of his identity I would say that his opinion is very much based on his views as a Christian that that it is impossible for them not to be. Just because he doesnt mention the bible it doesnt mean that it has not been fundamental to how he has formed his views. This is clearly evident when he relies on the straw man arguments of homosexuality being a choice and/or result of abuse. In my experience it is only the bigoted Christians who argue this as they see same sex as a sin and therefore curable.

        So if you take the bible & God out of the equation then the issue of whether homosexuality is a choice and/or a product of abuse becomes irrelevant as most non religious people just dont care. In fact I have yet to come across atheists who even feel the need to fight this issue.

        This means that the only possible non religious argument Craig makes is that same sex couples lack the ability to procreate all by themselves thereby failing to meet the marriage criteria. But if marriage was denied on this basis then one would also be telling all the heterosexuals couples who dont want kids or who cant have kids that they shouldnt be married either.

        Re referendums I agree – I said the same thing but with more words! I like them in principle but they are not binding so just a huge waste of money just the same as reviews.

      • Mitch

        I’m with you on the referendum, but aside from being a more reliable poll of public opinion, it’s useless unless it’s binding. If it’s¬†going to happen, then those opposed to the change need to get it in action now. I’d put any amount of money on it coming back with a majority in favour of gay marriage today, and as time goes on, that majority is only going to get bigger. I actually think they’ve missed their shot here, by the time it ever happens it’ll just be salt in the wound.

  • http://nzconservative.blogspot.com Lucia Maria

    PolishPride,

    Unfortunately there are many unbaptised couples that are Married and
    Many couples who do not believe in God (or believe in another God) and
    do not believe in Adam and Eve that are married.

    Yep, they are married.  Not in the sacramental sense, but I would agree that they are married.

    Lucia: A couple of facts:

    1: Marriage pre-dates Christianity, and can be traced back as far as recorded history goes.

    2: Around 30% of this country is non-religious.

    That said, what exactly gives you the right, as a Catholic, to impose
    your set of rules upon those who don’t follow your religion, or any at
    all?

    Don’t disagree with your no 1, see my comment that you responded to regarding Adam and Eve and marriage.¬† As for no 2, I’m not imposing my set of rules upon anyone – I’m just defending what marriage actually is, before it gets redefined even further by those that would seek to impose their set of rules upon everyone else!

    • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

      “I’m just defending what marriage actually is, before it gets redefined even further by those that would seek to impose their set of rules upon everyone else”.

      I can understand you wishing to defend your view of marriage, but your view isnt everyones. 

      Further, any changes cant possibly impose on you. You wont be forced to get married to someone of the same sex and you dont have to have a gay minister marry you. That is like saying someone down the house having pre-marital sex or using contraception imposes on you. It doesnt (well unless they end up on Welfare but that’s a different topic!).

      • http://nzconservative.blogspot.com Lucia Maria

        Any changes will affect my children and (future) grandchildren and the type of society they will inherit.¬† It’s not just about me.

      • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

        And what happens Lucia Maria when one or more of your kids turns out to be gay…what are you going to do them?

        Pray the gay away?

      • http://nzconservative.blogspot.com Lucia Maria

         Hi Cam,

        On the chance that that might happen (my boys are aged 15 and 11), I have been educating myself on what sort of influences might make that occur.¬† I’d recommend this book: Gay children, straight parents: A plan for family healing.¬† Basically, if there is a gay child, the earlier you know, the better and the child is like a canary in the coalmine for the family.¬†

      • Mitch
      • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

        Lucia it is clear Cameron was being facetious.

        Re that book – while I am not surprised you think same sex attraction can be cured, but reading that…..are you actually being serious? You would follow the practices of a discredited man whose “most well-known therapeutic techniques involves holding his male patients on his lap [which has has repeatedly demonstrated this on national television” A man who is “an evangelical, fundamentalist member of the Unification Church [that] vehemently opposes homosexuality and has compared gay people to “dirty dung-eating dogs.” A man who claims homosexuality is the result of childhood anger and who was probably at some stage a big fan of the well known Catholic Church practice of castrating young homosexual boys (so as to stop their ‘gayness’).

        So no people you dont know getting married to other people of the same sex wont have any impact on your children or your grandchildren. But bringing vile books like that into your home will!

      • Gayguy

        Yes Lucia it will change the society they live in. They will live in a far more equal and accepting society. And your sort of thinking will be something they will be ashamed of. 

    • Rodger T

      Do you understand Maria,that when same-sex marriage is written into law,it will not be compulsory and is not being imposed on you?
      Unlike your religion that tries to impose its twisted “moral” code on everyone.
      Of course,the human history of marriage goes back thousands of years before your Adam and Eve fairy tale was dreamt up, but hey, I would not dream of imposing reality on your right to believe bullshit.

    • Mitch

      I come back to my first point, that marriage pre-dates Christianity, and in fact, most religions. One of the major opponents to gay marriage are those that argue from a religious point of view. Those religions, being much younger than marriage itself, don’t have any divine authority to hold the word ‘marriage’ as a term for just themselves. I think it’d be fair to say that the Bar/Bat Mitzvah is an exclusively Jewish celebration. That’s an example where I think the Jewish would be entitled to be angry, if the Mitzvah was appropriated by another religion. But that isn’t the case with marriage.

      What you define as ‘marriage’ isn’t the be all, end all of what ‘marriage’ is to all people in New Zealand.

      • Caleb

        we have heard you say this like a broken record.

        there is a civil union, be gay.

  • Justin.

    I say lets let democracy decide.¬† I’m opposed but hell lets open up the debate, lets have the country have a binding referendum – I’ll agree with my fallow citizens.¬†
    I just don’t like how these social engineering policies [never mentioned in election campaigns] come out of the woodwork mid election cycle.¬† I bet JK would have never endorsed gay marriage in the election campaign.¬†

  • Luke

    I think it would be useful to deal with relationships, not marriage. So instead of a “Marriage Act” there should be a “Relationships Act” that recognises various types of relationships in law. Leave the definitions up to civil society. So, you could then recognise a whole lot of different types of relationships, like those between three or more people, people who want to unionise thsemselves with inanimate objects, etc. Under this scenario, the definition of “marriage” would stay as it has always understood to be. “Civil union” may stay as it is or could be widened. What do you think? Is this sensible? The State should wait for civil society (individuals) to decide on what marriage is, rather than the State trying to force a redefinition (this is called progressive legislation where the law is used to create structure, rather than just reflecting the current status quo).

95%