Re: The Evidence That Polygamy Will Be Next Claim

Press Release – Scoop Feedback

I cannot fathom why this national grandstanding is permitted without questioning the information/fuel they supply in fanning this controversy.Sir,

Where can I respond to the above article citing a raft of inaccurate references, thereby rendering the press release as an outrageous dishonest sound byte pontificated by leaders that should know better?

I cannot fathom why this national grandstanding is permitted without questioning the information/fuel they supply in fanning this controversy.

I am referring to your article;
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1301/S00012/the-evidence-that-polygamy-and-polyamory-will-be-next-claim.htm
in which there are 16 examples displaying Family First Facts

Example 1;
http://www.wluml.org/english/newsfulltxt.shtml?cmd[157]=x-157-507316

The link cites 2 studies from the Canadian government. Furthermore: The research paper is part of a controversial $150,000 polygamy project, launched a year ago and paid for by the Justice Department and Status of Women Canada. The paper by three law professors at Queen’s University in Kingston argues that Section 293 of the Criminal Code banning polygamy serves no useful purpose and in any case is rarely prosecuted.
Clicking on the above link takes the reader to
Women Living Under Muslim Laws, and the page is titled “Canada: End polygamy ban, report urges Ottawa”

In the reference section it refers to one report (two opposing views are in the body of the text, the largest estate belonging to allowing polygamy
Polygamy in Canada: Legal and Social Implications for Women and Children – A Collection of Policy Research Reports

Angela Campbell, Nicholas Bala, Katherine Duvall-Antonacopoulos, Leslie MacRae and Joanne J. Paetsch
Martha Bailey, Beverley Baines, Bita Amani and Amy Kaufman
The Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre

This 2005 report concludes “At the international level, there is a clear movement toward the legal abolition of polygamy to promote the interests of women and children. Canada is widely known for its leadership in promoting the rights of women and the recognition of human rights. Canada should be very reluctant to alter this reputation be decriminalizing polygamy. Furthermore the first recommendation in the report is to maintain the Criminal code s. 293, making it an offence to enter into a polygamous marriage or live in a polygamous union in Canada.

There is also a broken link, I expect pointing to the first report.

Conclusion: a site by Muslim women (and from that I assume they are heterosexual) are promoting polygamy. What are the chances? Furthermore one of their sources of evidence is taken out of context and incorrectly applied to the extent one of the reports recommends against polygamy.

Example 2;
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-R-0172.htm

Clicking on the above link takes the reader to a 2002 (Same sex marriage became legal in 2005) Law commission report having the Topic as MARRIAGE (GENERAL); FAMILIES (GENERAL); SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

No mention of polygamy, but was specific of relationships between couples (conjugal and non-conjugal) as well as being of the same sex on this link.

By further searching the paper is found and looking at the footnotes Family First refer to “Although the authors of “Beyond Conjugality” are politic enough to relegate the point to footnotes, they state that they see no reason, in principle, to limit registered partnerships to two people.” This is simply untrue.

What the authors do state is (footnote 32) “In this Report, the Law Commission of Canada does not address the issue of polygamy. further study is required on the effects of polygamy and the appropriate governmental response, for example, around the inequality and balance of power issues which may exist within the relationship. However, it is reasonable to question whether use of the Criminal Code is the best way to respond to these issues. See Law Reform commission of Canada, Bigamy (Working Paper 42, 1985). The previous Commission recommended that the offences against conjugal unions, apart from bigamy, be repealed (at 22-23). There is a strong case that the consequences of bigamy are also better addressed through civil sanctions.”
Example 3; Newsweek article.
I won’t spend time disseminating news articles designed to polarise viewers.

Example 4;
http://beyondmarriage.org/full_statement.html

A statement from the LGBT community in the US. The word polygamy is not used. Nowhere is there specific reference to having more than one partner (and there are references from the mormon state, Utah)
Example 5;
Broken link I assume because they used the link found here: http://www.christiandoctrine.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=565:the-1972-gay-rights-platform-&catid=106:society-and-culture&Itemid=478

Additional searching found this;
http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/onetime/bl_platform1972.htm
However this is one line from a 41 year old bulletin, so will not bother with it. How far back does Family First need to seek for examples?

Example 6;
Unfortunately I am unable from the comfort of this chair examine the full report. This is the first reference relevant to New Zealand society within an acceptable time frame. However looking at the example; “New Zealand legislation gives a mixed message about what State counts as family.” This does it mean that same sex marriage will lead to polygamy. In fact this example implies existing legislation is conflicted on what constitutes a family.

Example 7;
Again the source in this example [http://www.investigatemagazine.com/dysonspeech.pdf] does not discuss Polygamy or same sex specifically. Rather the discussion is about empowering families and moving from a social welfare to a social development. By Family First implying this article is saying same sex relationships leading to polygamous results, and by that I mean “We must cater for the diversity, we know exists. By this I mean the range of relationships from single, couples, triples, blended, de facto, and so on” is simple bias. For example, because of the ambiguous wording “triples, blended” I think Dyson is really talking about separated couples maintaining children to both sets of parents.

Example 8; – the only New Zealand example providing evidence on the slippery slope of kiwi’s sexual values
http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/2/article_12052.php
Interesting out of context example here. In this case it is clear to me that Family First have no distinction between polygamy and polyamory. The article was actually written to identify that GLBT rights did not end with marriage equality. Nowhere was polygamy mentioned or even implied.

Example 9;
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp?nopager=1
Back to the USA.
I won’t spend time dissiminating news articles designed to polarise viewers.

Example 10;
http://familyfirst.org.nz/2012/10/toronto-school-board-poster-promotes-polygamy/
This is a school poster.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/toronto-school-board-poster-promotes-polygamy
The poster states in large letters, “Love has no gender”, but that does not mean marriage. There are images of apparent unions with more than 2 people in it. but again not specifically does it detail a polygamous relationship. Now it may seem I am sweeping under the carpet here, so just to be clear. This is a poster containing images. The volume of stick figures implies the different type of relationships possible between individuals, and there are instances of being more than a couple. There are none with babies, there are none indicating marriage. Therefore I am assuming this is about sexual orientation, rather than legislated social definitions.

Example 11 through 16; news articles
I won’t spend time dissiminating news articles designed to polarise viewers.

As can be seen from above Family First rely on incorrect references to push their view that same sex marriages will eventually lead to polygamy. I have looked through much of the evidence within a short timeframe and found it to be ambiguous at best. That is, there is no corroboratory evidence convincing me that Family First provides indicating that by permitting same sex marriages will eventually lead New Zealand to legislating for polygamous marriages.

Yours Sincerely
Dax Lloyd
Sydney, Australia

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url

 

26 comments:

  1. Lloyd of NZ, 11. January 2013, 14:12

    Gidday my old aussie cobber “Dax”
    I think you are a bit confused by the information regarding the special interest group changing the definition of marriage for the rest of society.
    When one tries to do this it is quite clear that it opens the polygamy debate as polygamy is also just another changed social definition of marriage.
    As why would it stop at marriage changed to a man and man( not stop at being a man and man and man).
    As I keep pointing out not one gay / GLBT couple in NZ has been kept apart by the existing law, they are free to enjoy and love each other. The changing of the word marriage looks like little more than a special interest groups ( Labour MP’s GR ) movement.
    It is not a human rights issue at all. No matter how many times a man has loving annal sex with another man no founding of a family will/can ensue- it is not a marriage in NZ.
    This movement is just to suit a handful of selfish MP “GLBT”elitists that want no basic NEEDS met for society at this time .

     
  2. Jared, 11. January 2013, 19:14

    If there were a connection between polygamy and gay marriage ,gays would be getting married in Iran, Sudan & Saudi Arabia instead they are executed.

    In the US when laws against interracial marriage were being debated in the 1960s opponents said polygamy and marriages between brothers and sisters would follow and they didn’t!

    NZ will have gay marriage very soon, stop scaremongering and get used to it!

     
  3. Jancis M. Andrews, 13. January 2013, 4:42

    There is an enormous amount of misinformation published about the three Canadian female professors of Queens University who wanted the government to decriminalize polygamy. Theirs was the minority recommendation — all the other researchers condemned polygamy as a contravention of women’s equality rights, as guaranteed by sections 15 and 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This view was soundly upheld by Chief Justice Robert Bauman of BC Supreme Court on November 23, 2011, after a request was made to rule whether or not S.293 CC, banning polygamy, was constitutional. After examining the Affidavits of 13 groups, both pro and con polygamy, for four months, Judge Bauman ruled that S. 293 CC IS constitutional in that polygamy is basically an anti-social act. He states it does indeed contravene women’s equality rights, harms their children and impoverishes them, and sets men against men in the quest for a wife and family of their own …..Nature hasn’t even provided two women for every one man, so polygamous males are robbing their brothers, thus setting up a dangerous social situation. Canadians applauded his ruling. All this can be checked on the Internet. Canadians do not want concubines and harems in our country. We believe women are equal to men and our laws back this up. The year is 2013 AD not 2013 BC!!!!

     
  4. jjjg, 13. January 2013, 7:10

    I am Canadian and it was a tough sell for the anti-poygamists to not change the polygamy laws. It only takes a rogue judge. The same arguments against polygamy could be used against gay marriage. It could be said that only a short time ago it would be unforseeable that they would allow gay marriage in Canada, but it’s here now.

     
  5. Lloyd, 16. January 2013, 12:44

    @ Jared
    Who’s “scaremongering ” ?
    If you ever bother reading comments social definitions or these threads you will find out just how wrong you are.
    There is a connection, and the elitist MP’s and their pals want to change OUR social definition of marriage .
    If a man and man’s personal relationship is changed into a “marriage” then why can’t a man, man and man be married (or a man, woman and woman).
    When you change our social definitions to suit yourselves, when no need has is established it is selfish and an abuse of power.
    The definition of marriage is a social definition not a special interest/political definition.

     
  6. Jared, 16. January 2013, 19:11

    Lloyd,
    Name one country in the world that has legalised gay marriage and then polygamy? You are scare mongering because there is no international example for that or the reverse, Uganda has polygamy does it have gay marriage? NO! They are however debating a government bill called “Kill the Gays!”

    When the California Supreme Court struck down the bans on interracial marriage in the 1948 case Perez vs Sharpe the dissent argued that all of the other restrictions on the institution of marriage were void and that polygamy would follow and it didn’t. You assume Lloyd that the government and the law cannot distinguish between situations that are different from one another, we gave women the right to vote but that doesn’t mean we have to give it to five year olds next.

    Why not change marriage to include “man, man and man be married (or a man, woman and woman)?Because that would require us to rewrite every single law governing marriage, with regards to inheritance, divorce, child custody, insurances and the authority to make medical decisions on behalf of a spouse. You may have an answer to this BUT this is not an issue for 2 people of the same sex marrying.

    The merits for gay marriage and plural marriage are not the same, and if you are to have an honest discussion of plural marriage acknowledge how it is actually practised in countries where it is legal. It is 1 man and several wives. There is a legitimate reason we prohibit this in a liberal democracy like NZ: it is abusive towards women and provides a disproportionate amount of authority for 1 male.

    Marriage is an evolving institution and attempt to change the institution will succeed or fail on the merits of the argument. When women became recognised as full citizens deserving of full legal equality, marriage evolved so that women were no longer their husband’s property and later were entitled to a 50-50 spilt in a divorce, a huge change in the social definition of marriage.

    Similarly when black people achieved legal equality marriage evolved so that races could intermarry, another change for the institution!

    Gays want to access the institution of marriage as it currently exists, that is two people coming together to make a lifelong commitment not to change it to something else.

    New Zealand has made it the policy to say that gays can’t be discriminated against and we are bound by that, so we will have gay marriage soon!

     
  7. Lloyd, 17. January 2013, 9:33

    @ Ozzie Jared you didn’t answer the question, what scaremongering are you talking about, and what discrimination ? You are the one touting polygamy and why you think marriage definitions can be changed (for no reason given )in NZ by a special interest group .
    Because you know there is not discrimination in NZ , unless the social definition of marriage as a man and woman ( founders of a family)is changed to that of a a man and man.
    There is no need for changing the definition of marriage, and there was no social movement behind it , it was all an elitist gay MP’s and their friends movement.
    Polygamy: If you do change a social definition it is unreasonable to expect that if a man and an man can force a church to marry them, then so can a man, woman and woman, or man man and another man, which is polygamy.
    A changed definition of marriage in NZ,( maybe your definition in Sydney is a man and man( with no family founding), but NZ social definition of marriage is not that of a man and man.
    Gay couples in NZ can be MP’s (and the PM), they can love each other they can live in a personal relationship, the state recognizes their commitment to their lifelong personal relationship, you are just creating problems that don’t exist (for gay’s lifelong personal relationships in NZ).
    .

     
  8. Lloyd, 17. January 2013, 9:47

    Jared why aren’t you blogging/campaigning for your friends in Uganda? There is discrimination against gay lifelong personal relationships there.

     
  9. Jared, 17. January 2013, 11:17

    Lloyd,

    What scare mongering? The slippery slope argument to polygamy has been used before in debates surrounding interracial marriage it was wrong then and now.
    No-one is forcing churches to marry anyone, no judge ever has or ever will order a minster of religion to perform a church wedding. If the Church of England can say no to Prince Charles they can certainly say no to gays!

    Gays are not a “special interest” group we are citizens like everybody else and thus deserve to be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

    You may not see that there is any discrimination against gays but there is: we cannot marry the person of our choice and we cannot adopt children as a couple.

    I don’t have a different driver’s licence because I’m gay and I am not going to register my relationship through a different system(civil union) because I am gay either.

    That would be like saying to a black person you can drink water, not just from a “white only tap”. That would be like saying to a person who had completed all of the requirements to become a New Zealander, “you can vote, own property, work, and live in NZ but we will not allow you to call yourself a “citizen” because you’re Japanese!

    That would be almost equal and we won’t settle for that!

    The is a difference between gay marriage and polygamy as I outlined. For the government to discriminate against a class of people there has to a compelling justification. We don’t allow polygamy because it oppresses women and would create legal ambiguity for every administrative law governing marriage. We don’t allow brothers ad sisters to marry because of the births defects that would arise from their offspring and it would promote coercion within families. Same sex marriage on the other hand harms no-one!

    Finally Lloyd you give me to much credit for “creating problems that don’t exist for gays lifelong personal relationships in NZ”!
    Any country which accepts homosexuality as the norm (which we do!) will be taking part in the global discussion surrounding same sex marriage!
    Re my friends in Uganda I do, but as a New Zealand citizen who spends a considerable amount of time there, I have the same rights as you do to take part in this debate!

     
  10. Lloyd, 17. January 2013, 12:02

    Jared I am glad you are helping your and my friends in Uganda, for legal assistance on the REAL discrimination that they face is priceless.You can help them so that they can aspire to have what gay couples in NZ already have- which is lifelong committed personal relationships.
    You are lying again when you write that gays cannot have a committed lifelong personal relationship in NZ.
    Spend more time in Uganda and try to understand that the law changes in in NZ society should not be dictated by an elitist special interest group.
    Misinformation spread by a special interest elitist group that gay people are being discriminated against in NZ is not a discussion its a lie.
    Its so selfish, (harmful for some clergy to ignore their religious beliefs)and very much unneeded. Do you even know that poverty, unemployment, lack of medical care,3rd world disease, people without shelter and food is a real problem for people in NZ? Not lies about people that say they cannot love one another in New Zealand.

     
  11. jared, 17. January 2013, 13:06

    LLOYD, rest assured as soon Uganda is debating same sex marriage I’ll be giving them plenty of financial support which I have already done in both Australia and New Zealand. I’m assuming that you have been just as generous to your side of the debate ?

    Of course I aware of the problems you raise in NZ, but passing gay marriage doesn’t prevent us from dealing with those other issues.

    I am not lying!Unlike a heterosexual, I cannot marry (YET!) and creating a disfavoured legal status for gays without providing a compelling justification for doing so is wrong.

    There is nothing selfish about equality!

     
  12. Lloyd, 17. January 2013, 15:37

    Jared I don’t have a side, and I do not identify myself with a sexual preference in any issue.
    There has not been a public debate on gay marriage as it is not a movement from society.
    It is an elitist movement, brag all you like about your financial support but it is needed in places like Uganda where discrimination does exist.
    NZ is not Uganda and all gay couples have the right to a lifelong committed relationship.
    You don’t choose to deal with any important problems when instead you choose to create them as you have in this case. It is selfish, and that you are paying money to support such stupidity is very sad in this needy world.
    I did not know that in Sydney Australia if you are gay you cannot have a lifelong committed personal relationship.
    Thats another croc.

    If you move to NZ Jared you too can enjoy the equal treatment experienced by gay NZ people in lifelong committed personal relationships had by everyone (except polygamists and pedophiles – they are not currently lobbying for law changes that would allow them to have the state recognize their lifelong personal relationships with their choice of partners ).
    You have submitted no debate points, you talk about Uganda as though it is NZ , talk about an inequality in personal relationships that doesn’t exist as in NZ.
    All gay people can have lifelong committed personal relationships & that you claim they cannot love each other if they are gay in NZ.
    No reason why gay people in NZ cannot have a lifelong committed personal relationship has ever been given as there is no law against it and nothing to stop people from it.
    You have some wrong ideas of what NZ is like, you compare it to Uganda , and with all the other gay marriage campaign lies I am not surprised that you are so ill informed.

     
  13. Jared, 17. January 2013, 16:10

    Lloyd,

    I didn’t say that gays in Australia or New Zealand cannot love on another I said we are treated as second class citizens because our love is not recognised within the convention of civil marriage!

    If you truly believed in equal treatment of gays (I bet you don’t!) you wouldn’t be drawing the line at marriage! That’s what being equal means that we are treated the same not consigned to a separate, lesser category.

    It is you my friend who have no debate points and who spreads false information, your constant references/comparisons of gay marriage to group marriage/polygamy or your version of it (man and man and man) and now paedophilia (YIKES!) illustrate that!

    There is a public debate going on about this issue and you know it or else you wouldn’t be on here blogging!

    In MAY of this year gay marriage will be legal and you won’t be able to do a thing about it!

     
  14. Lloyd, 17. January 2013, 18:04

    Thats a croc Jared, as this whole gay marriage( a private members bill) campaign is based on the lie that gay couples in NZ are not allowed to be in a lifelong committed personal relationship. They are.
    Your new idea of the rich MP’s and elitists feeling like second class citizens when they are free to love and live together in a lifelong personal relationship in NZ is insane.
    I have not debated with you, I have argued with you as you still cannot tell me one reason why you/gay people cannot have a committed personal relationship in NZ.
    You are found to be lacking in reason and have posted lies and madness in your argument.
    At home in a dictatorship of elitists your flawed selfish thinking would be acceptable, in a society it is not.

     
  15. Jared, 18. January 2013, 10:40

    Lloyd,

    If you reread my comments I never said gays didn’t have the same freedom as heterosexuals to love in a “lifelong committed personal relationship.” I said that we did not the same freedom to have our “lifelong committed personal relationship” recognised by the state as a MARRIAGE!

    “this whole gay marriage( a private members bill) campaign is based on the lie that gay couples in NZ are not allowed to be in a lifelong committed personal relationship”.

    No it isn’t! The argument is that Marriage is fundamental civil right!A marriage licence is the only licence you can’t get if you’re gay in NZ. It is not a unnecessary luxury it is the most important step a couple can take. Excluding people from marriage on the basis of their sexuality means that gays are being left out of this important institution which is the highest form of state based relationship recognition possible! If gays can’t marry and everyone else can then of course that creates for gays a second class of citizenship and a disfavoured legal status! The final argument is that allowing gays to marry in no way harms the institution of marriage.

    Your argument LLoyd is basically this: “Gays already have all of the rights they need! They can love and live with whoever they want BUT I draw the line THERE! They get nothing else! De facto recognition, OK ,maybe civil unions , but no marrying up in here, that’s for us heterosexuals, we have to protect the social definition blah blah BARF!

    I want the same rights to MARRIAGE as you LLoyd! Nothing more, nothing less!You may think you own marriage but you don’t!

    For you to continually suggest that I think that gays cannot love on another in New Zealand in a “lifelong committed personal relationship”is a blatant misrepresentation of what I have written.

    If that’s your trump card; it’s the joker!

     
  16. Lloyd, 18. January 2013, 12:20

    Gay people in NZ have, and do utilize, the right and ability to be in lifelong committed relationship.
    You claimed that the Labour gay MP’s behind this private bill, whom are engaged in loving lifelong personal relationships with their same sex partners, think they are like second class citizen’s.
    The state recognizes gay personal relationships ( if you are so insecure as to need state validation of your personal relationship you have that).

    There is no discrimination in NZ against gay people who want to have a state recognized lifelong committed personal relationship.
    For goodness sakes, go and campaign in the countries that gay people really are discriminated against ( Uganda or the middle east)
    Its sad that you are telling the world a lie that gay people in NZ cannot love each other in a committed lifelong personal relationship, and that the State does not recognize this loving lifelong committed personal relationship.

     
  17. Jared, 18. January 2013, 12:51

    Heterosexuals can marry and gays can’t!That isn’t a lie it’s the truth!

    Any law that treats gays differently from the rest of society is discriminatory!

    It’s the equivalent of having a “heterosexual only” drinking fountain!

    Louisa Wall is in a civil union, of course she is, because she cannot MARRY!

    Tamamti Coffey has said in interviews he feels like a second class citizen because he only had the option of having a civil union and not a MARRIAGE!

    I want the same marriage certificate that everyone else has and won’t settle for anything less.

    By the way the gay marriage bill in parliament has the support of most of the MPS, 80/120 is a good majority!

     
  18. Lloyd, 18. January 2013, 14:19

    You are wrong in both law and facts, society had not changed its definition of the word marriage.
    Labour MP Lousia Wall was happy on the day she celebrated her state recognized lifelong committed personal relationship. But now she is not happy with her state certified lifelong personal relationship.
    Ms Wall did not need a civil union to have a lifelong personal relationship with her partner and no state agency said she can’t be in a personal relationship , she felt she needed a piece of paper to validate her personal relationship. She needed to be told by the state who she can have a personal relationship with,( its OK its state approved).
    These Insecurity complexes have developed and grown and have turned into an aggressive human rights violations aimed at the church . Now its ” I need church validation for my personal relationship” so that I can feel the same and equal to members of the the opposite gender.
    The Church does not think men and men are the foundation of family in society ( as they are not) . Gay Labour MP’s should learn to accept and like the differences between hetrosexual couples and homosexual couples in there personal relationship , I do .
    Be different, you have equal rights in your personal relationships, how can anyone prevent you from having a loving relationship( thats your campaign lie, that gay couples are without the right to love and their love is illegal in NZ)

    You have every right that a hetrosexual man has( but the union of two men cannot found a family as it can with a man and woman that difference is real & should be accepted ) but yet you still feel discriminated against because the State hasn’t changed the very social definition of marriage just for gay MP’s and elitists.
    A lot of MP”s treat parliament like a self service bar without any concern for the effect on society. You just continue to not do anything for your brothers in Uganda whom are being discriminated against. While you instead tell the world how(because not being the other gender makes you feel like a second class citizen), unequal you feel.
    I do feel sorry for you, but not because you feel you cannot have a state recognized lifelong committed loving relationship.
    We have no laws and no people in NZ that stop you from having loving lifelong committed personal relationships, you are not being discriminated against.

     
  19. jared, 18. January 2013, 15:13

    Same old line in every post isn’t it “no-ones stopping you from loving who you want …… ” I’ve addressed in all of my previous posts, I don’t need to again!

    Louisa Wall is plenty happy with her relationship, what she is not happy about are separate laws for gays, to quote from her submission to select committee “A number of people have raised the fact that non-heterosexual couples should be satisfied with civil unions and not be able to enter the institution of marriage because there is the choice to formalise relationships with civil unions. There is no logical or rational base on which a heterosexual couple should be able to choose to commit to each other by way of civil union or marriage and non-heterosexual couples are unable to exercise that same choice.”

    The church does not own marriage nor does it issue marriage licences.It is the state who has that authority

    I would never ask to be married in church and I sincerely respect their right to refuse to marry gays (or anyone for that fact not meeting their definition of marriage)and to speak against gay marriage from the pulpit!

    What I will not tolerate is the church telling me that I cannot marry in a registry office! Religion does not drive our civil laws!

    Re your comment: “the union of two men cannot found a family as it can with a man and woman that difference is real & should be accepted”

    Procreation has never been a requirement for marriage licence if it were sterile people and the elderly would not be permitted to marry.

    As for gays raising children, too stinking late it’s already happening!Elton John had his second child the other day, no doubt you’ll be happy about that!

     
  20. Lloyd, 18. January 2013, 16:20

    Again, for everybody who doesn’t enjoy the lies and selfishness of the MP’s ” legalize love gay marriage campaign”, there are NO separate laws for gay people in NZ.
    Gay couples actually CAN have a state sanctioned loving lifelong personal relationship with their partners (and the campaigning MP Lousia Wall is proof of this happy with her relationship) she obviously doesn’t feel discriminated against as no law is separating her from her partner.

    I didn’t even mention adoption or IVF , but before you can claim discrimination for gay couples adopting, they can adopt /and pay for an (outside their personal relationship) male and female union in NZ , so there is no discriminatory legislation regarding that either.
    So there are no discriminatory laws against gay personal relationships in NZ, and you cannot site ONE, yet but keep telling the world NZ has laws that are discriminatory against gay state sanctioned lifelong personal relationships.
    What you won’t tolerate is societies definition of marriage.
    So you say this whole gay marriage campaign is based on the lie that legislation exists in NZ preventing a personal relationship if you are gay( that Ms Wall has already said is untrue as she still loves her partner and is still with her.) What’s her real problem then, does she want a new certificate/piece of paper of personal relationship validation from society, and they are going to get it without societies validation, how strange, anti social and aggressive that is.
    A members bill campaign based on a lie, well its not the first time.
    Its very oInk oink at the trough that NZ parliament has become.

     
  21. JARED, 18. January 2013, 16:41

    “does she want a new certificate/piece of paper of personal relationship validation from society, and they are going to get it ”

    Yes Lloyd, we are going to get it!(gay marriage that is!)

    I’m signing off now, it’s been a pleasure talking to you!

    But if ( and that’s a big if) I’m wrong and Louisa’s bill doesn’t pass, Congratulations!

    If it does pass I’m sure I’ll be talking to you on this blog again in May!

    Ka Kite
    Jared

     
  22. Lloyd, 18. January 2013, 17:57

    Yes you should stop because it is now clear from you that there is no legislation against gay people’s personal relationship you lied.

    Abolished in 1840 and adopted [[Buggery Act|British law]] making homosexual sex punishable by death. [[Capital punishment in New Zealand|Capital punishment]] was never carried out in New Zealand for any reason than murder or one case of treason, and was abolished in 1961. In 1893 the law was broadened to outlaw any sexual activity between men.In 1986, the Crimes Act was changed with the passing of the [[Homosexual Law Reform Act]], removing the offence of consensual sex between males over the age of sixteen.

    What laws now prevent gay couples from having loving lifelong committed relationships in NZ.
    None .
    ‘The concept of marriage throughout history has been the union of one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation and the raising of a family.
    Marriage and the family were not always considered one-sidedly in negative terms by those on the left. For centuries, marriage and the family were conceived of as a sphere independent of the sovereign and the state, institutions in which people could forge relationships free from outside interference. The family represented a bulwark against the vicissitudes of capitalism, a ‘haven in a heartless world’, in Christopher Lasch’s terms. ‘
    Not anymore, what self serving tools of the state the insecure gay MP’s are. MP’s and their partners whom have said they are happy in their lifelong personal relationships while they claim at the same time they can’t have them as they are being discriminated against.
    Meanwhile they have no time for solving any real issues NZ has they prefer to make up untruths for political reasons, ( the so called “liberals” believe the lies and one single campaign donation of half a million is not a bad haul).
    I don’t want to talk to you in May , you and your partner don’t care about real discrimination in NZ or anyone else’s needs or human rights.

    If you and Louisa remain insecure and don’t validate your existing loving lifelong personal relationship with your partner you will continue to feel 2cd class .
    Personal relationship validation only comes from you, and you should not look for it outside yourself.
    I respect your fulfilled personal relationship right, you unfairly and inaccurately said I am against your personal relationship.
    You are the one doubting its validity not me! I am saying enjoy it , don’t pretend someone/society is stopping you from having it and keep telling the world NZ stops your relationship with your loved one because you are gay.

    Be real.
    Ka Kite

     
  23. jared, 19. January 2013, 10:15

    Oh Lloyd, The reason I’m stopping talking to you is not that I have lied or have not presented my case, I have! But your last comment
    implying mps are pigs is disgraceful and malicious and I have no desire to talk to someone who is as disrespectful as you are!!You don’t have an argument gay marriage but just keep repeating what you have before ” Noone is stopping you from having a relationship, so you don’t need marriage!”

    Not suprising from someone like you who has called me a “liar”, “”elitis”t, “selfish” for what? Because you don’t like gay marriage, well TOUGH!

    Your version of full rights for gays is us not being arrested for having a gay relationship!Well being free to have a relationship without being arrested is not full equality!

    A civil marriage contract represents full equality before the law for gays and lesbians.How “selfish”, “elitist” “insecure” for anyone to want that!
    Are heterosexuals who marry insecure?I don’t think so!

    The reason I have argued with you is NOT TO CHANGE YOUR MIND!
    I don’t need to! As this year NZ, France, the UK and the US Supreme Court have the numbers to pass gay marriage!

    IF IT’S OK TO BE GAY, THEN IT’S OK TO MARRY!

    Rather I wanted everyone reading this to see that the extremist elements of the gay marriage marriage opposition are based on pent up hysteria!

    It’s one thing to say that in your view marriage is between a man and a woman!

    But it s quite another to say that gay marriage leads to polygamy, (*still waiting for an example of a countRy who leagalised gay marriage AND THEN POLYGAMY) and is a threat to religious freedom !

    That is not Louisa’s bill and you all know it!

    I have no desire to speak to you again either, being the kind of person who will always want to have the last word I can imagine what your reply will say……

    But that says more about you LLoyd that it does me, and just shows how desparate people become when they know the have lost!

     
  24. Lloyd, 19. January 2013, 13:23

    Jared maybe you don’t expect it but as a representative of the voters the voters expect parliamentarians to serve out of conviction and a commitment to the public good.
    Members of Parliament (Code of
    Ethical Conduct) Bill
    Member ’s Bill 8 Principles of ethical conduct
    Every member of Parliament must have regard to the follow-
    ing principles that apply to their conduct in the performance
    of his or her parliamentary duties:
    (a) selflessness, the importance of making decisions solely
    in terms of the public interest and not being influenced
    by financial or other material benefits for themselves, family, friends, or business associates.
    This is only one reason why it is selfish and wrong to lie to the public claiming that if you are gay in NZ there exists a law that stops you from having a state sanctioned( you said thats what Louisa wants and she doesn’t have one ) lifelong loving personal relationship.
    There is no discriminatory law and you know it but you continue to lie to people.
    I also find it repelling that this is going on in NZ while discrimination really exists for gay people in Uganda you have the nerve to compare the way gay Labour MP’s are treated to people whom are really prevented from personal relationships and even killed for being gay !
    Lousia has everything she says she doesn’t have , but instead of working on real discrimination she tells NZ that law prevents her from having a state validated lifelong relationship with her partner because she’s gay.
    She has equal treatment in the right to have a state sanctioned lifelong committed personal relationship and no law stops her or her partner from adopting or IVF.
    You (and this “I can’t be in a state sanctioned loving personal relationship because I’m gay “campaign) expressed great disrespect towards voters, people who are really suffering discrimination and towards society.

     
  25. Peter, 20. January 2013, 13:11

    Lloyd,

    Homosexual couples have the right to a civil union. Heterosexual couples have the right to a civil union OR a marriage. This is the discrimination.

    The debate doesn’t centre on a social definition of marriage. This present bill looks to establish a statutory definition, which NZ law currently lacks. Since same-sex couples can fulfil all the statutory requirements of marriage, there is no reason that they should be excluded from a statutory definition.

    And this debate is not confined to “elitist” MPs. It’s been going on in the public domain for years. Seriously, have you not noticed it?

    Polls conducted over the last two years also indicate that the majority of NZ citizens support extending marriage rights to same-sex couples.

    Having read through online submissions, a lot of NZers want the opportunity for their gay friends, whānau and colleagues to marry the person they love, as their heterosexual peers are free to do. Most of these people are straight, as well … nothing selfish about that!

    Arohanui.

     
  26. Lloyd, 22. January 2013, 13:06

    “Peter”
    Marriage is a social definition, not a gay Labour MP’s definition to be changed when elitists want to, (no public consultation was undertaken before the launch of this campaign and it is not a social movement for any social benefit as society has already granted rights to be together for people engaged in same sex relationships)
    As the social definition of marriage has not been changed , marriage is still not thought of as man and man’s personal relationship, it is not discrimination( sorry I know law confuses you).
    A man and a man’s( or same sex) union is different, and the same sex union can never found a family, a community and a society. Hetrosexuals have the ability to have a union and found a family on that union, homosexual couples can’t as they have different personal relationships not the same( and our species would die out if that had been the social definition of marriage).
    A man and man’s personal relationship is not thought of by society as marriage. It is selfish campaign as gay people in NZ’s already have the right to live and love in a committed relationship, different genders and cannot found a family, but yet have the same right of state sanctioned personal relationship.
    The right is already there but when you tell NZ it isn’t, you get a minority of people in NZ support gay marriage as they think that gay people do not have the right to have a state sanctioned loving personal relationship!
    So by deceit you get the liberal to support a misinformation campaign for MP’s to change the social definition of marriage as you claim only then can you have the relationships that gay elitist and gay MP’s are already in!
    Poor hoodwinked elitist liberals thinking its unfair that gay people in NZ cannot have state sanctioned personal relationships and they are being discriminated against like in Uganda. But gay MP’s haven’t told the liberals that they actually can love and be with the person they love and they are not discriminated against, that they just want to change the social definition of marriage that society has.
    Gay MP’s do not, and cannot, have the social definition of marriage in their personal relationship which is a man and woman.
    It is the Government’s fundamental job to reflect society and to shape the future’ If marriage is ‘owned by the people’( not gay MP’s and their misguided elitist friends network), surely any redefinition must be subject to the democratic will, yet you say not so in the NZ.
    So a minority group somehow has the right to impose its ‘unnatural’ redfinition on the majority? If so, why not permit Muslim men to marry four or five wives?. And if marriage may be polygamous, why not incestuous? , why stop at a redefinition of marriage which just includes homosexuals .

     

Write a comment: