Procreative Rationale

Many of the opponents of marriage equality cite that the basis of marriage is for procreation. Yet when asked to explain how marriage is allowed for infertile couple or for senior citizens and they can’t procreate, they then resort to discussion over having the necessary equipment…and other useless arguments.

The Supreme Court in the US looked as precisely this issue…and finds the arguments of the opponents wanting.

The central criticism of same-sex marriage revolved around procreation; that the purpose of marriage is to produce offspring. These critics faltered when asked about infertile couples or senior citizens who get married. If this were a serious basis for policy, the best enforcement mechanism would be fertility tests before granting marriage licenses.

Justice Samuel Alito worried that the question is just too new, that mobile phones and the Internet have been around longer. Same-sex marriages have only been legal anywhere for less than a decade, though gay and lesbian couples have been living together, some with adopted children, for ages. The woman who brought the case against the federal law had been with her now-deceased female spouse since 1967.

Chief Justice John Roberts said proponents were showing inconsistency with their dual claims that children of same-sex marriages fare as well as others and that legal recognition is necessary for the welfare of these kids. 

The American Academy of paediatrics agrees:

Actually, much research and many experts concur with both points. Last month, the American Academy of Pediatrics, after an extensive review, declared that allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry is in the best interests of children. When critics worry this will lead to more adoptions by gay couples, they ignore that the alternative often is for these children to suffer in orphanages or in a flawed foster-care system.

When opponents of marriage equality cry “Won’t somebody think of the children?”…How about they start with themselves.

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Ha ha “GOTCHA!” no strawmen left for the churchy types when the Chief Justice and AMA dismiss arguments. Personally I think it is just envy because although 2 men cannot procreate by god they get far more sex in one week than the average Presbyterian man in a lifetime!

    • Gazzaw

      Depends on what you call sex Minarchist. I think I’ll go without.

    • BJ

      And there lies a good point – self gratification frequently doing an unnatural act at the expense of your partner (not that they think that because they get to be in the ‘driving’ seat next) as the only way to make you feel like you’ve made it as a man – but you haven’t because you cannot handle being vulnerable to the emotions that intimacy (in the true sense of the word) with your opposite and unknown would bring. Far easier to engage with a being just the same as you – and I am not talking about character, personality and family genes – I’m talking about the basis of being human – our sexual being, including our thoughts, emotion and what gender our bodies have been made and acceptance of how those bodies are designed to express our sexuality – either male or female

  • LesleyNZ

    After watching 60 Minutes last night on Prime TV I am more than convinced that children need a mother AND a father. Children are not dolls.

    • James

      Which is worse for the kid: two fathers; one mother; two mothers; one father; no parents at all?

      • LesleyNZ

        The best is a mother and a father. It must be awful if you have no parents. It is sad if you have just a mother but no father and a father and no mother. What I saw last night were two men who felt they were lacking in something because of their lifestyle choice. Children are not dolls. The ideal is for a child to have a mother and father. Children do miss out on something very special when the mother or the father are not present in their lives.

        • BJ

          And why don’t people get it – you can’t learn how to be a Mother if you are a bloke and same for Father – one parent, two the same, one of each – is not the point. One of a gay couple may be more nurturing than the other but their sexual being will never be that of a woman to impart inherent aspects of the human makeup that needs to be modeled and transferred to all humans if we are to stay civilised and not become self sufficient monsters

          • unsol

            How is this relevant? How is a gay couple choosing to have a child via IVF or adopt someone’s else’s ‘trash’ relevant to a hetero couple in a committed relationship choosing to conceive a child of their own?

            The 2 things are poles apart.

            Like the article said “That’s why public opinion has changed. The more transparent and open these relationships can be, the more the irrational fears are allayed. The threats to the institution of marriage are divorce and children born to single parents, not gay and lesbian couples.”

            So to deny LGBT the right to marry on the basis of those who might want to adopt a stranger’s child is to force that child to remain in awful circumstances.

            The reality is these children don’t have a mother & a father who want them, who are in a committed relationship, who love each other, who are functional well-adjusted emotionally mature adults.

            Instead these people are stuffed in the head & their offspring need saving either via foster care, permanent guardianship or adoption.

            So these children are in desperate need of any adult that can offer them a stable & loving environment – which solo parents (e.g someone for a relationship & a child) & LGBT couples can do.

        • mick le prick

          What lifestyle choice?
          Your so called GOD made us gay, the only choice is that gay people are true to themselves and accept they like COCk.

          • LesleyNZ

            No.

          • BJ

            You that criticise the religious for their faith, are the biggest copout artist – God didn’t make you like that – your weak concious being had you choose to opt out of facing up to intimacy with the opposite sex – whether it was a thought at conception or in the womb or whatever – your conscious self made that decision

          • Rodger T

            If want to give your god the credit for all the good stuff BJ,then he should also man up and take the blame for (what you think is )the bad stuff.

          • BJ

            Never said I was religious

          • Rodger T

            Well congratulations then,on a very convincing imitation.

          • BJ

            No one made you like that, then! – better?

          • Rodger T

            Like what?

          • BJ

            Not loving yourself enough so that you have to be sexual with your mirror image – if you are a gay man

          • Rodger T

            I can understand your paucity of rational thought leads you to that assumption.

          • BJ

            I wasn’t actually meaning to direct my comments at you personally – I apologise

          • Rodger T

            No worries BJ, I can handle the cut and thrust of internet duelling : )
            I always hope people take my comments with a dose of salt, the humour doesn`t always come across the way I hope.

          • Rodger T

            spolly ,you bitch, stop it with the down votes. : )

            smiley face just to show I`m taking the piss.

          • Rodger T

            LoL ^

          • unsol

            paucity is my new word for the week!

          • BJ

            MIne is sophistry – that is what a gay man described the crusade for Gay Mar…ge

          • LesleyNZ

            How did the bad stuff get here on earth – through the devil. Bad stuff happens because of sin. The devil can only operate as God allows.See the book of Job in the Bible. The devil was allowed to destroy all that Job had – but not his life. Death happens because of sin. God allows bad stuff to happen as he controls the devil (see Job). God is not the author of bad stuff. The devil is.

          • greenghost

            Not if you’re a gay arsehole haha

        • James

          Yes; the best for a child is a mother and father. But I wasn’t asking for the best – I was asking for the worst. And I would far rather that, should something happen to me and all of my adult relatives, that our kids were brought up by two fathers or two mothers than go into care and be brought up by the State.

          • BJ

            The truth is though that gay men are going to want a designer child through the ‘use’ of a surrogacy – and the poor little mites you speak of will be in the same place they are now – I don’t believe for one minute that the motive is good and wholesome and a service to society

          • LesleyNZ

            I would much rather it be the grandparents or other members of the extended family – or my friends.

    • mick le prick

      What Bejebus planet are you on?
      So are you and ya bible bashing nuts going to round up all the solo mothers?

      • LesleyNZ

        Same planet as you. We just have a different world view. No. Children need their father in their lives – even if the mother is solo. I know so and know what happens when dad is not there in a child’s life.Of course then you could say that if the dad is abusive he should not be in a child’s life. True. Sadly the child misses out on having a dad, child-father relationship.

        • Andy C

          Tell us again about lifestyle choice Lesley. I need a good laugh :)

          • LesleyNZ

            Look in the mirror – from what I have heard that will give you a good laugh.

        • mick le prick

          Well i have a great relationship with my 15 yr old son he has grown up open minded funny you can learn so much from your kids.
          The whole gay equality debate has been lost cos young people today are less judgemental than the bible bashing hypocrites.

          • BJ

            Thats good to hear – but I’d be more convinced to hear him say that and was he brought up full-time from a baby in a house with two homosexual Dads? Come back when he’s an adult and telling us he is a well-adjusted heterosexual will be useful

          • LesleyNZ

            Depends on your worldview and what you believe in and what you teach your children. Just because one is not “openminded” doesn’t mean they are wrong or Bible bashers as you call me – talk about being judgemental. A lot of young people today are openminded but are empty and wonder about the meaning of life and what it is all about – a lot have not been taught morals or values. Anything goes. Sad really.

      • unsol

        Lesley hasn’t brought the bible into the debate yet. She was making an observation that children’s needs are best served when they have a father & a mother together raising them in the same house.

        And ALL research backs this up.

        But where she & I differ is that this does not happen for a whole host of reasons – none of which should preclude the LGBT couple’s right to have a child.

        • Rodger T

          As usual unsol the voice of reason ,yet you get a down vote LoL.

          • unsol

            Probably spolly or bj – they are connecting on a whole new level. but there will be more – why let facts get in the way of a good story eh!

          • BJ

            No down votes from me today – there are just watches on here you know

          • BJ

            To the down voter – that does not worry me one iota – but I will reiterate – I do not lie!

          • unsol

            Haha funny stuff – I think they are just addicted to downers :p

          • spollyike

            All the gays sit around all day lonely just down voting everyone while they dream of cock.

          • Rodger T

            You sound like an expert on all things gay spolly, or is it just wishful thinking on your part?

          • spollyike

            Are you just grumpy because you haven’t had your cock today RODGER?

          • Rodger T

            Is that all you`ve got spolly?
            I can guarantee,that never having indulged in anal sex I have considerably less experience than you and bow before your extensive knowledge of the subject

          • unsol

            baa doom tish!

          • spollyike

            the sound of rodger ramjet rimming your ass?

          • unsol

            You know offence cant be given, it has to be taken…

            Infidelity inferences, especially pertaining to gay men is just silly.

            And you think you are my age?

          • unsol

            You’re beginning to sound like starboard now……what’s happened spolly? Why are you obsessing with this?

          • spollyike

            Actually i am so sick of WHALE obsessing with this i want desperately to put an end to it. You have to admit he must have some motive for the continual push of this relatively tiny issue.

          • unsol

            Re motives I agree – I am not sure whether he posts on this for entirely honourable reasons. But I am happy to see the issue in the public forum – his reasons are his business & further, these posts are about 1 out of 20 or so he posts each day. Also it is only a handful of people that bother to comment!

          • spollyike

            Still an over representation! Why is he obsessing about an essentially left wing PC RIGHTS issue? National core voters aren’t even interested in this crap.

    • unsol

      I agree. In a perfect world every child would have a mother & father living together in perfect union. But 2 gay couples of different genders having a child together via IVF is far better than a hetereo couple splitting up & making the child choose who they live with.

      To fight this issue so that LGBT couples on the basis of denying these couples the right to adopt is to the detriment of children who are in desperate need of good homes.

      To quote the article “That’s why public opinion has changed. The more transparent and open these relationships can be, the more the irrational fears are allayed. The threats to the institution of marriage are divorce and children born to single parents, not gay and lesbian couples.”

      • BJ

        Do you really think this is about adopting the forgotten children? The drive to leave something on this planet of ones-self I’m sure will have two gays each with a designer child from each of their sperm will have women seen only as incubators and this will be the new normal. I don’t know about you unsol but that thought is abhorrent to me

        • unsol

          I personally find any form of IVF abhorrent – I’m of the view that children are a privilege not a right so if you cant have kids naturally adopt or dont have them at all.

          But then what really annoys me is that those who make the worst possible parents ever, who see children merely as a meal ticket, seem to pop them out quicker than rabbits.

          • BJ

            I am in total agreement with you on that

      • LesleyNZ

        Did you see the 60 Minutes?

        • BJ

          Was it about two Aussie gays that sent sperm via DHL to China to a surrogate?

          • LesleyNZ

            Yes but it was India.

          • BJ

            Oh yes India AU$40,000 changed hands but I imagine the surrogate got a pittance and now we have 3 little Indian children growing up under the influence and culture of two white middle aged gay men – how confusing is that for them – never knowing their mother that sold her womb because she was poor

        • unsol

          No

      • Callum

        Just because not every child is born in a “perfect” environment is no reason to legislate to allow and encourage children to be brought up in a very imperfect environment. Personally this country would be a far better place (and many children a lot better off) if you required a licence to breed.

        • unsol

          Yes I agree – you should require a license to breed – based on character & income. Sexual orientation is irrelevant – no research to prove it is or that children brought up in happy healthy stable single parent families are any worse off. To suggest that is to suggest couples are perfect yet couples who have stayed together when they shouldn’t have have a lot to answer for in terms of being poor role models whether due to cheating, emotionally immature, poor work ethic, entitlement attitudes or having unsubstantiated attitudes about LGBT or just generally sexist.

          But in terms of LGBT your comment misses the obvious – LGBT can already adopt. The adoption law does not discriminate. So those couples inclined to adopt have been doing so for years. But because they can’t get married they can’t do it as a couple so one becomes the adoptive parent & the other a permanent guardian.

          The ME Bill will just mean they can adopt as a couple – as only married couples, not de facto or CU, can do this.

    • Mishi

      Well my son never had a father because he was lost at sea literally.

      • LesleyNZ

        That is so sad. I am sorry to hear this.

  • spollyike

    WTF! Whale why are you so obsessed with this subject? Seriously in the big scheme of global or even NZ wide politics, how do you place so much importance on the subject of Homounion? It really does suggest an ulterior motive such as: you are a homsexual, you have a close friend or relative who is homosexual (possibly gayguy), or you are in the pay pocket so to speak of the global progressive movement which supports these things. I don’t see how you can claim to be a right wing blog at all given the fact that you are clearly so progressive on this issue and the fact that you are so anti-conservative on many other issues. Given the fact that the core of National supporters are in fact quite conservative and not progressive i fail to see the connection you can make with these people and therefore conclude that you do not in fact represent the typical National supporter but actually a far more socialist and progressive one. Maybe you represent the type of National supporter that only votes National because they know Labour is history and determines that National these days is essentially New Labour anyway. I believe if you were a true supporter of National and all they stand for you would stop this Homo nonsense and start applying your skills to real issue like why we are heading down a path of political separatism and why this seems to be ok, why the vast population are being lied to by revisionists and Iwi elite, look at issues like the hijacked constitutional review and closely analyse the members of that panel and their race based conflicts of interest. At the moment everytime you make a post about Homosexuality you undermine your own credibility as a right wing blogger.

    • Feel better now?

      • spollyike

        strangely, yes.

    • redeye

      Well homo marriage articles do generate a lot of comments. Both on here a kiwiwblog. It must be good for the blogging business.

      • It has a surprisingly low impact on our stats. 1-2% at most. It would be easier to write another blog post and get hits from that.

    • Maybe Whale cares for his fellow Man and wants them equal before the law and enjoying the same rights as he enjoys…mmmm?

    • unsol

      WTF spolly!!! Why spend time & effort on here writing 300 words objecting to Cameron’s post, without 1 actual relevant argument pertaining to either for or against it, when it is time & effort you could spend with your young child & pregnant wife?

      Cameron is at least doing something constructive…..

      • spollyike

        Ha constructive – you mean DESTRUCTIVE!!

        • BJ

          Yes spollyike – he’s doing a great job in aiding the deconstruction of marriage.

          • unsol

            All this liking of each other’s posts….you & spolly really should get a room…..

          • spollyike

            Yeah like you and gayguy already did, hope you like anal.

          • unsol

            Lame come back math genius…you need to work on your one liners!

            I have far too good a character to flirt online, in real life or let alone cheat. Marriage to me isnt about sexual orientation & procreation, but it is most certainly about love, fidelity, trust & commitment.

            So I am hardly going to have an affair, let alone attempt one with a gay guy…..

          • Guest

            Lame come back math genius…you need to work on your one liners!

            I have far too good a character to flirt online, in real life or let alone cheat. Marriage to me isnt about sexual orientation & procreation, but it is most certainly about love, fidelity, trust & commitment.

            So I am hardly going to have an affair, let alone attempt one with a gay guy…..

            And how do you know he doesnt just do oral? Have you two hooked up?

          • Can I just please pop in here and ask everyone just to take it back one notch on the sorts of things that could be considered personal insults instead of discussing the topic? Thanks.

            —-
            a personal note to unsol: the Discus system is auto moderating a lot of your posts (why I don’t know). It side-lines them for manual review. I’m getting annoyed at having to do it. Normally we do 1 ever 2 days. I’ve had to look at 8 in the last 30 minutes. I suspect “toning things down” may assist in getting past the Discuss robot.

            Multiple submissions of the same message is just going to upset mods (that’s me, right now)

          • Guest

            deleted – double up!

          • Guest

            3rd time lucky trying to reply to this!

            Lame come back math genius…you need to work on your one liners!

            I have far too good a character to flirt online, in real life or let alone cheat. Marriage to me isnt about sexual orientation & procreation, but it is most certainly about love, fidelity, trust & commitment.

            So I am hardly going to have an affair, let alone attempt one with a someone who isn’t even straight!

          • BJ

            LMHO – but it is infectious. I’m not in the habit of extramarital affairs and I’m not engaging because I am lost and lonely.

          • unsol

            What’s LMHO? Sorry not really a text lingo person.

            And I was only teasing

          • BJ

            Laughed my head off – I’m not text lingo person either so what I do is google the letters and usually find out what someone’s on about from the urban dictionary

        • unsol

          Seem to be having problems posting my reply to your one that refers to GG – moderators surely that is something you want to pull into check?

          If not, well I here it is:

          Lame come back math genius…you need to work on your one liners!

          I have far too good a character to flirt online, in real life, let alone cheat. Marriage to me isnt about sexual orientation & procreation, but it is most certainly about love, fidelity, trust & commitment.

          So I am hardly going to have an affair, let alone attempt one with a gay guy…..

          And for a so-called straight married guy you sure do seem to know a lot about GG’s personal life….

        • Guest

          deleted – double up!

    • Changeiscoming

      To answer your first question – It’s all about page views.

  • Blair Mulholland

    The lawyer arguing for proposition 8 is clearly useless if he is using these sorts of arguments. To me it’s a very simple case – does prop 8 violate any constitutional rights for gays? The answer is “no”, marriage is a matter for the States to regulate as they see fit.
    On the other hand, the Defense of Marriage Act falls down for the exact same reason. I am thinking that the Court will say yes to Prop 8 and no to DOMA. Or they should anyway.

    • JC

      Agreed. DOMA actively discriminates against gay relationships; and that undermines one argument against same sex marriage that SSM is not required to remove discrimination.

      Really, they need to repeal DOMA (and Roe v Wade) and get the Feds out of the nation’s beds and wombs.

      JC

  • Orange

    The two quotes don’t seem to have anything to do with the point you made. Laws are about norms and are not invalidated by exceptions.

  • Andrei

    More “marriage equality” bullshit

    Two men shacked up together are not the same as a man and a women joined together in matrimony and never can be nor can two women living together acheive the “equality”.

    The whole thing is ridiculous because it comes down to the life cycle of the human being which requires one of each gender to perpetuate the species.

    All this goes to show is how out of touch with reality our elites are which is why our childrens future is looking bleaker by the day as these fuckwits impose their nonsense on us and squander the wealth our forbears built up for us.

    How fucking stupid can you get, I thought we had reached the bottom of the trough with chatter rings, tamagochis and global warming but no, the absurdities continue to pile up

    • spollyike

      The problem appears to be Andrei that civilization it seems was created with a predetermined self destruct button. As civilization improved/es the survival of weaker/inferior members of said civilization improves. These inferior/faulty members of civilization (which could be faulty due to psychological, or physical reasons i.e. Homosexual or disabled genetically) are in turn allowed to procreate whereas in the past without the mask that “society” provides their deficiencies would have been exposed and they would have either died off or been found unsuitable for procreation by the opposite sex (just like in the wild). What civilization has inadvertently done is mask these deficiencies to the point where they have exceeded the “carrying capacity” of the civilization system at at this critical point which was probably reached sometime in the late 90’s we pass the point of no return. From that point on the members of society that were previously viewed as deficient for the continuation of the species are so numerous that the demise of civilization is no longer avoidable. In a nutshell, civilization has allowed the survival of homosexuals (who would not have procreated) as well as those that survive of the hard work of others (socialists) and has led to the marxist ideology to thrive around the developed world. In this way the self destruct button has already been pressed.

      • BJ

        Well said

      • spollyike

        Isn’t it so funny when you know your down votes are from “gayguy”! Just sitting there on his own down voting all day while day dreaming about anal sex must get tiring

        • Bunswalla

          Unfair, he finds time to teach little children too.

          • spollyike

            Teach? Oh yeah “teach” little children.

          • Makes a change from you and your holy ilk buggering them….

          • spollyike

            ???

          • unsol

            Have you asked all the teachers at your child’s montessori whether they are straight?

          • BJ

            Not the topic of sexual health I hope

          • unsol

            And what if he does? Kosh aka gayguy has as much right to teach sex ed as any teacher.

            Personally I find those parents who pass on myths & fairytales to their kids and/or are so inadequate as parents that they fail to even bring up anything pertaining to sex far more of a concern than someone with a different sexual orientation teaching a class the basics of our anatomy & reproductive systems.

          • BJ

            I can’t help but expect he – based on his posts here – would have considerable bias – and I would hate him to dwell on the embracing of a homosexual lifestyle to my vunerable, sexually awakening teenagers

          • unsol

            There is no way I would want GG teaching my child…or starboard for that matter (before he turned over a new leaf).

            I find men who make the kinds of comments they do as unacceptable in terms of being a good example for children.

            I do find those who have been obsessing with anal sex during this debate far more perverted though.

            In terms of your teenagers – what about the girls? Have you checked that all female teachers are not gay so that you can fend of any attempts to ‘convert’ them?

          • spollyike

            “gayguy has as much right to teach sex ed as any teacher”. I disagree with this comment on so many levels. Are you serious, you have spend too much time in sociology lectures, you do not even realise just how badly you have been indoctrinated unsol. A real pity, really.

      • Rodger T

        Would you like to explain to us how the 2-4% of the worlds population that happen to be Homo/Lesbian are going to overrun the remaining 96-98 % of the heterosexual population leading to our ultimate self-destruction?

        Math not your strong point Spolly or are you easily lead?

        • spollyike

          What reality do you live in? This is the reality where the minority gets their way my friend, democracy died long ago Just look at our recent referendums.

          • Rodger T

            I`m on planet Reality ,so what you are really whining about is your right to discriminate is being impinged?

          • BJ

            Read my post about Cubs and Scouts below Mr wanna be

          • spollyike

            Ha reality you’re joking right? Your little idea of heaven where everyone is Gay and Rainbows fly everywhere and a new definition of marriage exists that after 2000 years no longer means the sanctity of man and wife but something hideously distorted? Your reality sounds like a nightmare. No, you are simply attempting to tell the BIG LIE as in your dream reality is already upon us. Well newsflash RT it is here yet and even if you force it to “be so” won’t make it so.

        • LesleyNZ

          So why then do we need telly programmes promoting the gay lifestyle? To educate us and socially engineer us to get us used to the gay lifestyle because it is the “New Normal” and so that we start thinking the gay lifestyle is normal? If 2-4% of the world’s population is homosexual then how can it be normal to be a homosexual?

          • Rodger T

            Feel free to change the channel Lesley,it is not compulsory to watch it.

            You are not under any obligation to consider homosexuality normal just as you are not being forced to engage in gay relations with anyone .

            The simple fact is that homosexuality has been around as long as humanity (no doubt we will disagree on how long that actually is,but nevermind),it has not led to the destruction of human life on earth and never will,as some here are claiming.

            A small number of people have the condition called Albinism ,do you consider them not to be natural?

            In fact the only unnatural human behaviour is celibacy ,this occurs nowhere else in the natural world,and we have seen the results of this condition.

          • BJ

            You know, it wouldn’t be so bad if the programmes portrayed real life but they don’t – as per every aspect of this fantasy of normality for homosexuals it is a surreal experience – it is a perception that in fantasy land becomes the truth but it will never be so

          • Rodger T

            FFS, it is a bad sitcom,(if this is the same show that was being discussed a day or so ago).
            If you need to take life advice from US sitcoms I suggest you take up a hobby instead,try trainspotting at the very least it would get you outdoors and give your mummy some peace.

          • BJ

            I didn’t watch it bar a few minutes – it is engineered for brainwashing of the masses

          • Rodger T

            Not everything is a conspiracy to upset your world ,maybe it is just a shit tv show like the other 99% of shit tv shows and will live or die on ratings.

    • mick le prick

      Yeah and if things were so great in your deluded matrimony world we would not have hookers would we lol?

      • Gazzaw

        The gay hookers seem to do pretty well too Mick so obviously all is not domestic bliss in your wannabe matrimonial world either.

        • mick le prick

          So true i have friends who do rub n tug massage and they say 80% of their business are married men lol

          • Gazzaw

            I’m sure that we can believe implicitly in what they say Mick.

          • BJ

            Such is the influence of homosexuals on marriage – I rest my case

      • Great point….the holy hypocrites can’t hack that….

      • BJ

        The people on here talking about preserving the definition of marriage are promoting the most important ‘club’ in the world – all the negatives about where marriage has not worked is exactly what we wish to stem the tide of – and your selfishness is adding a burden to that which will be too big for society – overtime – to bear

        • mick le prick

          blah bl;ah zzzzzzzz its getting boring

          • BJ

            If you were indifferent to my comments you wouldn’t be responding

    • Andy C

      So some gays get married, so what? How does that stop your cycle of life? What do you care what they do?

      • Andrei

        I don’t care what anybody does, I do wonder why though they perceive the need to get a license from the Government to do it.

        Can you explain this?

      • BJ

        Because all they want is to wear a badge to a club they don’t belong in – as an emblem of their self worth – thats all – How can you be accepting and loving of who you are, knowing you are different – all the while trying to fool yourself by believing that a club badge on your chest will make you acceptable to everybody else. The work needs to be done by and on themselves – not by putting it on heterosexuals. This mar…ge thing for gays is to try and bury the self loathing by mixing it in with something wholesome and normal like marriage. But as it surfaces again and again even within the club of marriage nothing comes out of the ground clean because the whole deconstruction of the heart of marriage will be tainted and contaminated.

        • Gazzaw

          BJ, it’s a club that they will never belong to regardless of what government legislates. Lets be brutally honest the politicians are rolling over on this issue purely because they can’t afford to alienate the gay vote – the margins are too small because of MMP. Only NZF has supported the silent majority because the demographics of their constituency demands it. The majority of society is against the proposal and government will not take it to a binding referendum which is a disgrace. We have all seen what has happened with the Smacking Bill.

          Gay ‘marriage’ will be regarded as either a travesty or a joke by the majority and nothing will change in society’s attitudes.

          • BJ

            Yes – so instead of all winners where the LGBT had their marriage equivalent, (their difference acknowledged and working towards acceptance without prejudice by the larger proportion of society ) and we had ours, we now all lose, society loses and becomes a circus.

          • spollyike

            the Homosexuals AND socialist want marriage regarded as a joke for similar reasons, that’s why labour attracts the “rainbow faction” their ideologies are essentially the same.

    • Kimbo

      “The whole thing is ridiculous because it comes down to the life cycle of
      the human being which requires one of each gender to perpetuate the
      species”.

      You are essentially arguing the supposed teleology of marriage from an Aristotelian philosophical basis. Which explains why an orthodox Christain is hanging out with Roman Catholics, and why you minimise your (substantial) doctrinal differences with them for pragmatic ends

      So is Aristotle teleology self-evident truth in this and all matters?

      • BJ

        I would think you very intelligent if you could put that into words that a 10 year old could understand

        • Kimbo

          OK, I’ll try. Don’t say you weren’t warned! :)

          The reason I wrote what I did was because you’ll note that whenever Lucia Maria or Andrei write, it is with a level of certainty that seems really dogmatic. The reason is because you are seeing the tip of an ice-berg.

          The Greek philosopher Aristotle, in contrast to his teacher, Plato, taught that what a thing (including an institution such as “marriage) does in NOT because someone or something DECREED a law that it should be that way. Instead, something (such as marraige) is what it is because it is MADE that way.

          Which means irrespective of what we think marriage is, a man has a particular physical organ, and a woman have a particular physical organ that fit together, and produce babies, so that is why marraige is for men and women.

          Whether individual men and women can have babies togther (as Whale Oil has argued in this post) is irrelevant. Men (as a group), and women (as a group) obviously function together to have babies, and we call that collective functioning together the institution of marriage. Hence, it is perfectly self-evident (if you accept Aristotle as your starting point, and ignore issues such as marraige might equally, or more importantly be for emotional and financial comfort and support, and then assemble the pieces as you see fit from there), that marraige, of its very nature, excludes gays and lesbians.

          Aristotle fall into disuse for nearly 1000 years, until he was re-introduced to the West courtesy of the Moslem Arabs (who had preserved his ideas) at the time of the Crusades. From there, they were picked up by a medieval Roman Catholic theologian, Thomas Aquinas, whose writings cemented Aristotelian philosophy not only as supposed self-evident truth, but also as the means by which Catholics (and their fellow-travellers like Andrei, who is a Christian Orthodox, who historically have found much to disagree with Rome about) view what is “reasonable”, and what is not. Hence, any discussion with them about gay marraige is instantly dismissed by them as “unreasonable”.

          Protestants, in contrast, aren’t so quick to argue “reason”. Instead, as per Plato, they look instead to “ideals”, or what a greater than earthly source has determined is right. Hence, Protestants will usually stick to: the Bible says…and you can take it or leave it.

          Also, depending on your take on how society should be, Protestants (who helped invent the divide between Church and State, in contrast to Catholics) have less problems if those who don’t share their belief system try to re-interpret marriage, and apply it in a different way in the civil realm. They can view them as wrong/mistaken, but that is the end of the matter until the wash up at the final Judgement.

          So, back to Andrei and Lucia Maria…If you are really going to dialogue with them (and watch out – they are slippery, and also very arrogant because they think everything they have assumed about Aristotle is true, and non-negotiable), you do so by questioning what it is (Aristotle’s) they are basing their argument on.

          Is Aristotle really right in all matters, some matters, and particularly on how they/the Catholic Church is applying him to marriage?

          And I’d suggest the answer is, “not necessarily so…”

          Or we can just carry on treating one side as bigots, and the other side as morons. Which might not be wrong, and is probably a hell of a lot funnier than what I’ve written, and what you’ve probably regretted reading.

          Sorry, I warned you…:)

          • BJ

            I really appreciate the time you put into that and to end a long serious dialogue on a humorous note was great.

          • Kimbo

            If you are going to stop the wingers scoring in the corner, you make sure their forwards don’t win the ball.

            If you are going to stop Andrei and Lucia Maria in their tracks, and drag them kicking and screaming to a point where they will at least dialgue and post in an honest way, you cut off the REAL source of their arguments – or at least get them to examine and justify them to a reasonable satisfaction.

          • unsol

            Very informative response – I did philosophy in my first year at uni but got bored soon after a lecturer tried to convince us A + B = C, a chair & the colour blue (metaphysics)!

            I didn’t know that Christian Orthodox/Roman Catholics had links to Aristotle or that the protestants had links to Plato. Never got that far. Very interesting.

            Genuine question (which may seem silly) for you though:

            Re “The Greek philosopher Aristotle, in contrast to his teacher, Plato, taught that what a thing (including an institution such as “marriage) does in NOT because someone or something DECREED a law that it should be that way. Instead, something (such as marraige) is what it is because it is MADE that way.

            Which means irrespective of what we think marriage is, a man has a particular physical organ, and a woman have a particular physical organ that fit together, and produce babies, so that is why marraige is for men and women.”

            Isn’t this slightly contradictory? How does Aristotle say something (marriage) was actually made? By man? Then how does or did that link up with his so-called claim that marriage is only for men & women when men & women have always been gay & further, in ancient Greece etc men married each other…which was I assume around the same time he was alive.

            And further, does Aristotle’s views align with historical research on the invention of marriage?

          • Andrei

            Men never married each other in ancient Greece, when societies get wealthy then decadence appears and along with it homosexuality, shortly thereafter those societies collapse as happened with Athens. All Greek references o homosexuality, or boy buggering as WO would have it come from Athens just before it fell over.

            If you are struggling to survive on the Steppes, there is no homosexuality because those who would live a “gay lifestyle” just wouldn’t survive so it doesn’t happen, no room for it

          • Kimbo

            No, I don’t think the Eastern Orthodox have links with the Catholics via Aristotle. Which makes Andrei’s allignment with them a bit surprising. But he is obviously just being really pragmatic on teh issue of gay marriage, seeking a common end. Bear in mind that when Andrei posts stuff about the “minimal differences” between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox that only theologians worry about, he is ignoring 1000 years of history, including the sack of Constantinople in 1204, or more recently the attempted genocide of Yugoslav Orthodox believers by the Roman Catholic-Croation Ustasi as recently as World War II. Or what happened before an independent Croatia was carved out of Yugoslavia after 1990.

            Which basically makes Andrei a whore who, for the sake of the gay marriage debate, will try and present a front of reasonable dialogue. Question to consider: Do people with this heritage of hatred, and using the apparatus of the state to persecute one another deserve to have their perspective considered as reasonable, especially when they seek to minimise or cover it up, and say that we are rushing head long to destruction compared to the “good old days” when they used to determine what happened in civil affairs?!

            I don’t have a problem that Catholics and Protestants have often been in dispute. That is human nature. But folks deserve to know the true facts, and make up their mind accordingly. Rome has a crap record of allowing people to do that, due to the fawning and necessary allegiance to their leadership inherent in their spirituality. Protestants don’t have that problem, or at least if they do, they haven’t properly thought through and applied what they believe.

            Protestants don’t usually see themselves as so-much influenced by Plato (although I think at points they unwittingly are), but from a Catholic perspective, they are. I’ve heard a Catholic priest argue Martin Luther was a Paltonist. Luther was highly frustrated by the
            Aristotelianism of the Catholic Church. Me to. I get tired of Roman Catholics trying to argue what they consider is “obviously reasonable”, because in their case reason always seems to end up agreeing with what the Pope says. Just like Jehovah’s Witnesses and their arguments. They dress it upa s reasonable, and throw a whole bunch of words and convulted arguments, but strangely “reasonab;e” is always what the hierarchy has decided is reasonable. Which is why, like Lucia Maria, who swans in seemingly appealing to reason, it is a thoroughly dishonest dialogue process.

            And yes, the irony of the Catholic Church appealing to a philosophy originating from a man from a society where homosexuality was practised (and Aristotle was Alexander the Great’s tutor) is a valid one. I’m guessing Roman Catholic apologists would argue that it is Aristotle’s premises that are right, but he just didn’t properly apply them. Which is what, I’d suggest they are doing with marriage. Whether Aristotle argued what they do about marriage – I don’t know What I argued above is not a quote from Aristotle, but how his philophy is being applied in the matter.

            Which raises a second problem with the Aristotelian premise that Andrei and Lucia Maria have assumed:

            1. Is Aristotle right? Maybe, maybe not
            2. Even if he is, has he been properly applied and all the data considered when we get the argument gay marriage cannot (not just “should not”) be.

            So, re Aristotle, I don’t consider myself an expert, but perhaps just ignore my use of the word “made”. Something (including for the sake of argument, marriage) “is” what is “is” – irrespective of how it came to be. Origins are not relevant to determining what it “is”. Instead teh telos (end/purpose/function) is what counts. It DOES is what it does because of what “is”. Therefore what it DOES is its purpose/telos (end). You look forward to what it should be doing on the basis of what it is, rather than upwards (to heaven) or backwards (to decrees and laws) for some sort of “ideal”. Marriage produces children, that is its end/purpose. Therefore it “is” only for heterosexuals.

          • unsol

            You’re fascinating. I have read your reply, but don’t have the time to digest it properly so will come back as I have a couple more questions. Thanks for the clarification/further information!

          • Andrei

            Lol you left out the best bit where the Orthodox Zaporozhtsi beat the Latin Poles in 1648 and Poland ended up disappearing from the map, most of it becoming subject to the Tsar until the end of WW1.

            Aint history jolly

          • Kimbo

            Yes, it is, especially when slippery people like you appeal to it selectively, e.g., “Men never married each other in ancient Greece, when societies get wealthy then decadence appears and along with it homosexuality, shortly thereafter those societies collapse as happened with Athens. All Greek references to homosexuality, or boy buggering as WO would have it come from Athens just before it fell over”.

            Hmm. What about Sparta? You remember them – the “stiff-upper-lip” pin-up boys for the moral conservatives: –

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece

            “Pedagogic erotic relationships are also documented for Sparta, together with athletic nudity for women. Plato’s Symposium mentions women who “do not care for men, but have female attachments…It is not only the most warlike peoples, the Boeotians, Spartans, and Cretans, who are the most susceptible to this kind of love but also the greatest heroes of old: Meleager, Achilles, Aristomenes, Cimon, and Epaminondas.””

            Hmm. Seems they are arguing that Sparta’s strength was attributable to being gay.

            Now I notice you’ve changed the subject again, Andrei You still haven’t shared with the class if you’re an anti-semite or not, and also, is it possible your system by which you determine is supposedly self-evidently true comes from a man whose culture practised homosexuality?

  • BJ

    We on this blog all know this debate has the wrong title to deliberately confuse the masses – there is no right and there is no need for oequality. Marriage is not just a label that we wish to retain as peculiar to the currant club members. It is a badge to be worn with pride by those that have earned it. It is not easy for men and women to consider and respect one another when they don’t understand where the other one is coming from. Men understand men and women understand women because of our sexual being. Even aggressive control freak type men and whimpy, helpless men understand each other so their conversations are easy – not a lot has to be said. It takes dedication and interest in a position (male or female) you are not aligned to and the rewards are ‘seeing’ the contribution that effort makes to humanity – balance, tolerance, caring – about all people that are not ‘mainstream’. To opt out of taking that tough normal road means you haven’t earn’t the badge – as much as you want it – sometimes life just ain’t fair – becuase of ones choices whether they be conscious or unconcious.

    An eg: A boy Cub desperately wants a Scout badge – but he does not want to do the required ‘work’ to earn it – oh he can steal one for sure, but to wear that badge that he has no right to while all the others in the Scout movement have – make him a despicable human being.

    For all those straight people on here that see this issue as one of equality I put it to you that you are like the Boy Scout who loves their little Cub friend or brother or nephew so much (And thats understandable) that you want the whole Scout Movement to have a mindshift to accommodate the person that you want to enjoy what you have – at the expense of everyone else in the Scouts that has done everything that was asked of them to earn that badge. Do you really think it reasonable, to make all the sacrifices, hard work and tenacity the Scouts who wear the badge with pride in their accomplishments, belittled to mean nothing all to accommodate a minority’s feelings of -‘oh I want what they’ve got”? Translate that to the issue of Gay Mar…ge – today how about considering the Married Peoples club that wear their badge with honour – Do you really think it reasonable to belittle what they work so hard to maintain? – the creative balance of men and women

  • So many things wrong with the argument above. I can see I’ve got a bit of work to do today on a post.

    • spollyike

      what have you done so far?

    • Travis Poulson

      What, you read that? I nearly sprained my finger scrolling down to the next comment.

      *casts bait….*

  • unsol

    “That’s why public opinion has changed. The more transparent and open these relationships can be, the more the irrational fears are allayed. The threats to the institution of marriage are divorce and children born to single parents, not gay and lesbian couples.”

    But you know, why let facts get in the way of a good story:

    A loving heterosexual couple dating, getting married, remaining faithful, committed, communicative & choosing to conceive a child on their own merit (as opposed to any form of welfare) is actually completely irrelevant to this topic. This is the ideal. Of course it is.

    But sometimes people die. And a child is left mother or fatherless. Sometimes reality is exceptionally cruel where the egg or sperm donors are useless wastes of space who don’t know how to choose good spouses, or get manipulated into thinking one is good, get cheated on or cheat, lie, steal, rape, beat, verbally, physically and/or emotionally abuse. The casualties of these people are their offspring.

    Some of these children remain in happy solo homes with or without shared custody depending on the nature of the break-up. Not ideal in a perfect world, but many of these children go on to have successful lives. One of my oldest male friends lost his Dad at a very young age. His mother never remarried & did an exceptional job in ensuring her sons became strong good men with empathy & compassion in abundance. His character puts that of many of you to shame. He is a Christian too, as is his wife. And he is pro marriage equality.

    For the children that need saving, who need new homes that are loving, stable & secure almost anyone will do – sexual orientation is NOT a factor. And the state already recognises this.

    And I know this will come as a huge shock, but there are actually people out there who prefer being with someone of the same or both sex – something they have always known or recently known, who either want to have children via IVF (perhaps sharing custody with an opposite gender gay couple), adoption or fostering through CYFs or adoption of their spouse’s child.

    And guess what – many of these people have already done this. Many LGBT are already parents & fantastic ones too. They have been doing this for years.

    The only difference with this Bill is that a LGBT will be able to adopt as a couple rather than one person becoming the adoptive parent & the other signing up with permanent guardianship.

    Further reading: rape crisis, MOH etc which all state that 98% of all sexual offences are committed by men with 100% of those being heterosexual where girls/women are concerned & 80% identifying as hetero despite molesting boys.

    But again lets not discuss facts….

  • Can I just please pop in here and ask everyone just to take it back one notch on the sorts of things that could be considered personal insults instead of discussing the topic? Thanks.

    —-
    a personal note to unsol: the Discus system is auto moderating a lot of your posts (why I don’t know). It side-lines them for manual review. I’m getting annoyed at having to do it. Normally we do 1 ever 2 days. I’ve had to look at 8 in the last 30 minutes. I suspect “toning things down” may assist in getting past the Discuss robot.

    Multiple submissions of the same message is just going to upset mods (that’s me, right now)

    • unsol

      No, the disqus seemed to want to moderate this reply & the other one I wrote to GregM this morning – both of which are completely innocuous, especially where spolly’s comment is concerned.

      Personally I would be moderating all those who keep bring anal sex into this debate – it is irrelevant.. The reforms of 20 years ago ensured that. And I am not sure the likes of Lesley appreciated reading such crass things.

      As for multiple submissions – given there is no moderation on here how are we supposed to know that if a random comment fails to turn up that it is because of you guys?

      On a brighter & different note, good to see you back in business – hope whatever ailed you has come right as it sounded pretty awful!

      • I work with the tools I have. I very much suspect that the multiple attempts at submitting have caused a warning flag at Disqus HQ, and everything you breathe on is now suspicious. Perhaps walking away for a cuppa might settle things a bit.

        • spollyike

          Agreed, what she writes is often very inflammatory.

          • unsol

            You realise we can all save screen shots of your new version of yourself for prosperity?! Inflammatory is what starts comment wars or sparring matches. I dont start them but I gladly participate if I have the time. Except the other night when for the first time I jumped in off the cuff & everyone cried victim. Ironic really given the crap I read on this subject most days (like you I don’t tend to comment on all the posts as it does seem a bit OTT at times).

        • unsol

          My original reply to spolly, that I attempted to re-post 3 times which somehow got translated into about 7 times, was what disappeared. As it was still in the reply box I pressed the post as unsol box again.

          So it wasnt the multiple attempts at all since it did straight off the cuff.

          Question is why is it this blog allows references to anal sex in graphic detail through with no attempt on moderation yet appears to moderate a rather restrained response (especially given the offence he was trying to cause)? It does seem odd…

          • spollyike

            Why do you find anal sex more offensive than normal heterosexual sex Unsoluble. I thought you were all for EQUALITY??

          • unsol

            No I said references to anal sex in “graphic detail” & inferred it might be offensive – primarily because it reduces gay men to merely sexual act that was made legal by the law reforms in the 80s.

            Men like you seem to focus on a sexual act that not all gay men participate in and further, forget that this Bill & the issues pertain to it are just as relevant for gay & bi women – whose sexual relationships were never made illegal.

          • “Question is why is it this blog allows references to anal sex in graphic detail through with no attempt on moderation yet appears to moderate a rather restrained response (especially given the offence he was trying to cause)? It does seem odd…”

            If, in my judgement, a comment is written to directly insult or denigrate another commenter or their loved ones, and it is patently over the top, I will generally ask for that to stop immediately.

            There is a lot of name calling and subtle personal “innuendo” insulting going on too. I let that slide if it is within the context of the discussion where it may flare up and then die down again. Where it becomes the norm of responding to someone else, then I’d ask for that to be stopped. Basically, when I see that every reply has minor personal insult in them.

            Things can get heated, and remembering that offense can only be TAKEN, the general idea is to keep people on the track of the argument and not having a to-and-fro calling names and suggesting bad things happened to them and their loved ones.

            Cam has set a policy that there is to be almost no moderation at all. So descriptions of anal sex to nauseating detail won’t trip any switches for moderation to kick in.

            Sometimes it’s nice to insert a rude word here or there. But if it becomes impossible to compose replies without liberally peppering them with insults and swear words, then it’s time to walk away from the computer and go do something else for a while.

            It’s my job to encourage someone to cool it when that happens.

          • unsol

            I was meaning the disqus thing – wondering if there was words that got flagged? I cant say I am a fan of it – I preferred the old version whatever that was.

            In terms of keeping everyone on track, is this a new approach in terms of drawing a line in the sand when there has been months of often very ugly debate that has been left unchecked?

            I have felt that exchanges between me & pretty much anyone on the opposing side have been fairly mild compared to what else I see go on – including those who jump in with personal attacks straight off the cuff such as those inclined to call me a cunt, arsehole, stating they feel sorry for my child & husband or that knocking myself off would give me more chances of hooking up with a guy than staying alive (a nonsensical insult if there ever was one), along with the more generic ones like dike, progressive liberal, left-wing, socialist cindy etc.

            So I’m guessing that the moderation is saved for things far worse that the kind of personal insults I get…..

          • Disquss is more interested in spam.

          • Bafacu

            Unsol, I don’t agree with every thing you believe in (go figure) but I also note that some commentators on here have taken an (IMO) unhealthy attitude on responses to you. May I respectfully suggest that sometimes it’s better to pause commenting for a period and come back to a topic after others (obviously less restrained that you!) have had time to move on a little.

          • unsol

            You remind me of someone. A new alias perhaps?

            There is no nice way of saying this so I will forge ahead as tactfully as I can: if I needed to be liked I would heed your suggestion. This is meant to be a right wing blog – no one likes the posts that Cameron is posting on this topic so it stands to reason no one is going to like those who comment in favour.

            And popularity, especially concerning matters pertaining to state or religious interference on ones personal life, is overrated – you are far more useful when you show you have a mind of your own & prepared to stand for something rather than fall for anything!

          • spollyike

            Why do you feel the need to come back to a discussion hours after everyone has gone home and post extra useless screeds of BS for? That’s just sad.

          • unsol

            Clearly it is was worth it….since you felt it was important enough to come back on & comment!

            Useless screeds of BS – you have to be able to quantify that in order for it to have any validity.

            Of course you cant though as you are just full of bluff, bluster & bullshit with nothing more than “it’s wrong because it is” stamps feet & stomps off.

    • spollyike

      I too am often “offended” by Unsoluble’s comments just like the computer. “Computer say’s NO.”

      • Offence can only be taken, so have a think as to why you are choosing to spend emotional capital on something like that?

  • spollyike

    stop repeating your post, repeating your post, repeating your post….SPAM!

    • unsol

      I know – bloody thing! And it isnt like I used words that would even cause a red flag…all your fault damn it! Anyhoo hubby is back with child so must put mum hat back on. :)

      • spollyike

        So SPAM hat off, MUM hat on, ok i get it.

      • BJ

        times 7!

25%