Comments on: Re: The Evidence That Polygamy Will Be Next Claim

By: Lloyd

Lloyd — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 00:06:08 +0000

“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 .

By: Peter

Peter — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 00:11:09 +0000

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.

By: Lloyd

Lloyd — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 00:23:03 +0000

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.

By: jared

jared — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 21:15:08 +0000

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!

By: Lloyd

Lloyd — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 04:57:03 +0000

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

By: JARED

JARED — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 03:41:11 +0000

“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

By: Lloyd

Lloyd — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 03:20:11 +0000

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.

By: jared

jared — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 02:13:27 +0000

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!

By: Lloyd

Lloyd — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 01:19:59 +0000

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.

By: Jared

Jared — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 23:51:49 +0000

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!