THE PROBLEM WITH RELIGION - ANTI SAME SEX MARRIAGE MOVEMENT PART 5

This is the final blog about the "21 Great Reasons To Keep Marriage As Is"... the anti same-sex marriage flyer from Family First NZ I got in the mail.

18.  SAME AS BANNING INTER-RACIAL MARRIAGE?

No - these bans were unjust, and were designed to keep races apart.  Marriage is grounded in bringing the genders together.  Overturning the ban on inter-racial marriage did not mean a redefinition of marriage but an affirmation of it.

This is all about equality so it is very much like banning inter-racial marriage.  This has been spun to make it look like a non issue but it doesn't take much to see how full of holes it is.

19.  BUT NOT ALL COUPLES HAVE CHILDREN

We agree, not all married couples have children - but every child ever born has a mum and dad.  Having babies is not a requirement for marriage - but it is a natural outcome.  Marriage is a unique union that can lead to procreation.  It is for this reason that the state became interested in marriage in the first place.  We do not disqualify couples from marrying based on exceptions.  Older people marrying is the exception also, not the norm.  Every man and woman who marry are capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father.

So let's start ripping this one apart; firstly and quite right, not all couples have children.  Lets not just push

that to one side as this is the crux of the headline.  Not all couples have children or are even able to have children for some reason or another yet they are still able to get married.  That's the first point.  Second, every child ever born has a mum and a dad?  Surely the writer of the flyer, being a Christian, doesn't even believe what he has written here... did he forget about his lord and savior, Jesus?

The rest of the statement is a complete contradiction unto itself when first saying marriage is a unique union that can lead to babies and then talking about old people getting married not to mention adoption for those who can't.  Same-sex couples can't so they adopt or use surrogate mothers, or in the case of lesbians, a sperm donor.  One more thing,  the state didn't become interested in marriage because of procreation.  It was to legitimise procreation.  In the beginning most states were run by the church and only after the separation of church and state was it solely the state that could legitamise a marriage and therefore the people under individual governments get to choose laws by majority votes.  Well, that's the layman's terms anyway, it has nothing to biblical bigotry.

20.  SAME-SEX MARRIAGE COULD STRENGTHEN THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE?

Marriage does not thrive under the inclusive banner of "the more the merrier."  A marriage culture, which is essential to a healthy society, is nourished when we are faithful to, and honour, it's time-tested definition, and understand its important purpose.  Extending the definition of marriage to include polygamy and group marriage would also not strengthen marriage just because more people could get married.

The time tested institution of marriage has been known to force marriage it is also in the market of arranged marriage and polygamous marriage so you kind of messed up that argument didn't you.  Perhaps doing a little research before pouring your misinformation out.

And finally...

21.  WE AGREE WITH THE POLITICIANS

During the civil union debate, NZ politicians (including gay politicians)  argued that the Civil Union Bill was an acceptable alternative, and that marriage should only be for heterosexuals.  We agree.  Nothing has changed since then.

The following quotes were included in the flyer under the same headline so lets see what they have to say and if things have not changed...

HELEN CLARK (Labour):  "Marriage is only for heterosexuals.  The Government is not -- underline -- not, changing the Marriage Act.  That will remain as an option only for heterosexual couples."

NZ Herald June 21, 2004

This quote is taken out of context and the debate was whether or not same-sex couples could be recognised under Civil Union, it was not a debate about whether same-sex couples could get married or not.  The full quote can be seen in the original article at NZ Herold.  

TIM BARNETT (Labour):  "The Civil Union Bill is an acceptable alternative; marriage can remain untouched."

1st Reading Civil Union Bill

Civil Union Bill, not same-sex marriage bill.

METIRIA TUREI (Green):  "Marriage as understood in our society,  and as formalised in law, is a specific culturally and historically bound institution...This bill does not affect the Marriage Act.  It does not change in any way the structure, the validity, of the institution of marriage."

1st Reading Civil Union Bill.

Same thing, different quote.  Remember, this was back in 2004 - it is now 2013.

JOHN KEY (National):  "Marriage is an institution of the church, I don't think it is necessary to have that label put on every relationship."  2006

"I don't think there's a real need to change the current legislation or to adopt new legislation."  2008

Wrong on both accounts, but I have been over this before.  These two quotes which were two years apart are irrelevant to the current social climate.

Quoting these people is of course an argument from authority.  When we look at how many MP's there are, 121, these three quotes mean nothing.  Add to that the second reading of the same-sex marriage bill was easily passed 77-44 in favour of the same-sex bill; so its good to see Bob is agreeing with the politicians!  This is where I take an ad hominem attack at Bob McCoskrie - Bob, you are a meat sack! 

So that's the 21 reasons Bob has given to try and stop same-sex marriage.  It holds about as much water as a sieve and if you find this flyer abhorrent, as I did, please pass this on and let those that believe they are doing the work of an invisible man in the sky that they need to wake up and smell the Human Rights violation fines.

I write this blog because it is a passion of mine to explore the myth of god and along the way I may even learn some cool stuff.  It takes a lot of time and energy to write so if you enjoy reading this blog please make a donation by clicking the DONATE button on the right so I can put more time into creating a better blog.

Thank you all

Justin

THE PROBLEM WITH RELIGION - ANTI SAME SEX MARRIAGE MOVEMENT PART 4

The continuing take down on the Family First flyer... part 4;

14. AN IDEOLOGY FORCED ON ALL
If marriage is redefined, everyone would be subject to the new definition. Anyone who disagrees with it would be at odds with the law. This will directly affect ministers, faith-based organisations and schools, and marriage celebrants, amongst others. If same-sex marriage is seen as a fundamental human right, then all will be forced to recognise it. You can't be selective about which groups will recognise fundamental human rights. The author of the bill, Labour MP Louisa Wall, promised that the bill did not require any person or church to carry out a marriage if it does not fit with the beliefs of the celebrant or the religious interpretation a church has. This assurance is now being seriously questioned by legal experts including NZ Law Society and members of the Victoria University law faculty.

This is the biggest piece of anti-gay propaganda he has so far written.  I had to read it a couple of time before just to be sure I wasn't misreading it.  His Fight to stop same-sex marriage which he says is not gay hating is about as believable as the proponents of Intelligent Design saying that they are not saying it's god.  The only thing he has written here which is actually not a load of bullshit is the fact that if marriage is redefined everyone will be subject to the new definition.  Well, yes, but so what?  Changing the definition of marriage, again, is not going to hurt anybody.  This whole reason #14 is a massive straw man argument without a shred of evidence to back up the hollow statements so lets quickly blow it down and move on to the next "reason".

15.  WARNING SIGNS FROM OVERSEAS EXPERIENCE

The alarming examples of what happens when attempts are made to redefine marriage are endless.

In Australia, tennis great Margaret Court came under attack when she expressed opposition to same-sex marriage early in 2012.  Court was accused by same-sex marriage activists of spreading "hateful comments" and "inciting the bigots out there";

Reason #15 is a long one so I thought I would approach each point as it comes.

Margaret Court barely hides her anti-gay viewpoint in her comments that can be read in this article (which is just one of many) in Compete Network.  Granted this is a gay orientated website so here is another article in The Sydney Morning Herold.  Her complaint about coming under attack is a little hypocritical.

In 2011, a respected Canadian sports anchor was fired after expressing support for the traditional definition of marriage on his Twitter account;

This one is a very vague statement and I had dig a little to find what was been talked about.  From what I read, Bob is hoping nobody will find out for themselves if this is true.  The article I found mentions that, in essence, the Tweet was the last straw.  Make your own judgement here CBS Sports.

In 2011, dual gold-medalist Peter Vidmar was to be chef de mission for the United States team at the 2011 London Olympics but was pressured to resign simply because he had supported Proposition 8, the measure which defined marriage as between a man and a woman in California;

Once again, there is more to this story than what Bob is saying.  I doubt there was pressure but who knows because there was nothing like that reported.  USA Today.

In Canada, Sakatchewan's highest court ruled that marriage commissioners who are public servants cannot refuse to marry same-sex couples, whatever their person conviction;

This is correct.  If you refuse to marry same-sex couples in a country or state that has legalised it you are in violation of the Human Rights Act and will be fined accordingly.  Any questions?

In Maine, USA, where recently a referendum allowed same-sex marriage, any notary public who preforms marriages may not refuse to perform a same-sex "marriage" for any reason, otherwise they will be charged with a Human Rights Violation;

This is correct, it is a violation of the Human Rights Act.  What is your problem with this, Bob?  It is a state given capability to marry couples, not a religious one.

In Denmark, same-sex couples have won the right to get married in any church they choose, even though nearly one third of the country's priests have said they will refuse to carry out the ceremonies;

...but have no problems with molesting children.  Seriously though, even though they have the right I doubt many will exercise said right and get married in a place that actively hates them and what they stand for so I wouldn't be too worried.

In New Jersey, USA, a judge ruled against a United Methodist retreat house which refused to allow a same-sex civil union ceremony to be conducted on it's premises;

I'm not even going to look that up because it's just another case of discrimination in violation of The Human Rights Act and by bringing all these points up you are in fact making the anti same-sex marriage proponents look worse ergo, your own primitive views are being shamed to the rest of the world.

In Israel, the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court ordered the owners of an Israeli reception hall to pay $25,000 damages to a lesbian couple after refusing to host their same-sex wedding on the grounds of the religious beliefs;

This is just another one of those discrimination cases... they seem to keep coming up again and again.  What are you trying to tell us, Bob?  That people of religion are being fined because of their intolerance and that's a bad thing?  Lets have a look at that religious belief shall we?  There are four versus in the bible about homosexuality, two are from Leviticus calling homosexuality an abomination and that homosexuals should be put to death.  That is discrimination and, well, murder as ordered by god.  Bob, why are you not murdering homosexuals?  Are you not going against god's word?

In the UK, a housing trust worker lost his managerial position, had his salary cut by 40%, and was given a final written warning after posting on his personal (and private) Facebook account that hosting gay weddings in churches was "an equality too far";

I read into this and, indeed, it does seem like Adrian Smith was treated unfairly but something about the case doesn't seem right.  If we know everything then this is a clear case of discrimination against Mr Smith and should be treated that way but I feel there is something we don't know about.  The phrase "Mr Smith's damages payout was limited to £100 because of legal technicalities." raises a red flag but there is no further information so I can't comment any more than that.

And UK primary school teachers could face the sack for refusing to promote gay marriage if same-sex unions become law.  An education minister refused to rule out the possibility that teachers, even in faith schools, could face disciplinary action for objecting on grounds of conscience.  Labour MP Louisa Wall recently suggested that integrated faith-based schools in New Zealand receiving government funding should not be promoting a traditional view of marriage.

Well, after reading this article from the Daily Mail, it seems like a thought experiment and bad reporting to me.  Nothing like this would happen or has happened in schools.

16.  BANNING "MOTHER", "FATHER", "HUSBAND", "WIFE"

The health department in the US state of Washington is to remove the words "husband" and "wife" from marriage and divorce certificates, after same-sex marriage was approved in a recent referendum.  The UK Government has said the words "husband" and "wife" will have to be removed from official documents if marriage is redefined.  In France, the words "mother" and "father" are set to be stripped from official documents, under it's plans to redefine marriage.  In Spain, terms such as "mother" and "father" have become "Progenitor A" and "Progenitor B" on birth certificates.

I for one don't see this as being such a big deal.  The only people that have a problem with this are the Catholics and Christians so far as I have been able to research and like I keep saying, this is a state issue, not a religious issue.  If we have to use more neutral words to bring equality then so be it.

17.  WHAT NEXT?

If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined again?  Allowing only same-sex marriage on the basis of love and commitment would then open the door for polygamous, polygamory (group), and consensual adult incest-type marriages.  Why would discrimination against these loving adults be OK?  They may be illegal now, but it wasn't that long ago that same-sex marriage was illegal also.

This is the biggest bunch of hyperbolic clap trap he has said yet.

More to come...

I write this blog because it is a passion of mine to explore the myth of god and along the way I may even learn some cool stuff but it takes a lot of time and energy to write so if you enjoy reading this blog please make a donation by clicking the DONATE button on the right so I can put more time into creating a better blog.

Thank you all

Justin

   

THE PROBLEM WITH RELIGION - ANTI SAME SEX MARRIAGE MOVEMENT PART 3

Continuing from the previous 2 posts...

9.  HOW DOES IT AFFECT YOUR MARRIAGE?

We need to be concerned with more than what merely affects us personally.  This bill isn't just a simple change in the wording of a current law.  It is proposing the complete redefinition of an institution as it has existed for thousands of years.

Actually, Bob, it is just a simple change in the wording of the current law and as I have pointed out previously the institution called marriage has changed massively over it's history.  This is blatant misinformation and I believe you have pulled reason #9 out of your collective asses.

10. DEFINITIONS MATTER
Changing the definition of something changes the way society and future generations view it and the important role it plays. We would not accept a law that changes the definition of a father to include mothers. By doing so, we would cover up reality. Definitions matter.

And so do logical fallacies which you have employed a two for one right here.  This is a non sequitur, straw man argument.

11. MUM AND DAD MATTER
Marriage between a man and a women says to a child that mum and dad who made you will also be there to love and raise you. Although death and divorce may prevent it, the evidence shows that children do best with their biological mother and father who are married. The differences between men and women - mothers and fathers - really do matter.

Try telling that to and orphan.  Try telling that to an adopted child who receives great love from his or her parents who are not biological.  As to the evidence... well, a simple Google search with the question "do children do better with married parents" shows a number of hits with articles from religious institutes I didn't even bother with for obvious reasons but I did find an article in The Mail Online which has this to say;

There is also little consensus over whether it is money that makes people marry or it is those who marry who become better off. All political parties have said they accept it is better for children if their parents stay together rather than break up.

But yesterday's IFS report said: 'Children of married parents do better than the children of cohabiting parents in a number of dimensions, particularly on measures of social and emotional development at the ages of three and five.

'But parents who are married differ from those who are cohabiting in very substantial ways, particularly relating to their ethnicity, education and socio-economic status.

'Once we take these factors into account, there are no longer any significant differences in these child outcomes between children of married and cohabiting parents.'

The researchers also warned that 'some caution is needed in interpreting our findings', which 'require some judgment on the part of the reader'.

12. GENDER MATTERS

One of the outcomes of redefining marriage is that same-sex couples will be able to adopt non-related babies and children. Two men might individually be good fathers, but neither can be a mum. Two women might individually be good mothers, but neither can be a dad. While a compassionate society should always come to the aid of motherless and fatherless families, a wise and loving society should never intentionally create fatherless or motherless families. Deliberately depriving a child of a loving mum or a dad is not in the child's best interests.

First of all, just because a couple get married doesn't mean they want kids, secondly isn't better to have two loving parents no matter what gender they are than none at all; that's kind of the point of adoption, right?

13.  JURY STILL OUT ON SAME-SEX PARENTING

There are many, many large, scientifically strong studies from the past four decades and earlier showing children do better with their married biological mother and father compared with any other type of family structure.  As prominent Irish homosexual and political commentator Richard Waghorn says, this is not to cast aspersions on other families, but it does underscore the importance of marriage as an institution.  Studies said to show that children of homosexuals do just as well as other children are - so far - methodologically weak, and thus scientifically inconclusive.  They certainly can't be used to justify a wholesale change to the definition of marriage or adoption laws.

This guy wouldn't know scientific methodology if it bit him on the bum, but lets explore what he has stated shall we?

The APA says there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children. APA on Children Raised by Gay and Lesbian Parents

Without going into too much detail (I'll let the article speak for itself) here is a study that has been thoroughly debunked as, essentially, a fraud.  Study Created To Influence Supreme Court

And here is a very interesting article that looks at both sides but seems to conclude that children being raised by gay parents is not an issue. Gayby Boom

Stay tuned, more to come...

I write this blog because it is a passion of mine to explore the myth of god and along the way I may even learn some cool stuff but it takes a lot of time and energy to write so if you enjoy reading this blog please make a donation by clicking the DONATE button on the right so I can put more time into creating a better blog.

Thank you all

Justin

THE PROBLEM WITH RELIGION - ANTI SAME SEX MARRIAGE MOVEMENT PART 2

This is the second part of exploration into the anti gay marriage debacle with more questionable statements from the Family First publication "21 reasons to keep marriage as is."  This was produced by Bob McCoskrie who is operating out of a Christian organisation to stop gay marriage.  I, for one, would accept any logical reason why two homosexual people cannot get married in what is called a same sex marriage, but this guy is making some unsubstantiated claims that seem to be above board, but when you dig down a little we find some very unsavory statements that appear to be invoking gods word.  God (an invisible man in the sky) may not be mentioned but those that support the intelligent design crew know that the what they are referring to is God.  We know what they are implying and they (the Christians) use an implied god as a reasons why two people that love each other can't be married in the eyes of the law because they are homosexual.  Let's dive right in shall we...

4. DEFINITION, NOT DISCRIMINATIONIt is perfectly possible to support marriage while also recognising and respecting the rights of others.  Changing the law so that marriage includes same-sex marriage unions would be a massive change to what marriage means.  The issue is one of diffinition, not discrimination.

This is not the first time marriage has undertaken a big change.  I talk, of course, about the law change which allow people who are married to be able to get divorced. In 1867 people who were married were able, by law, to get divorced thus changing the meaning of marriage forever.  It is now no longer bound by law and allows families who would generally rip each other apart through many problems including abuse to get on with their lives.  This also null and voids the "till death do us part" and rightfully so because two people who marry in a non-secular ceremony are promising to a non existent god that they will never part until death.

5. EQUALITY IS NOT SAMENESS

Equality is not sameness, and difference is not inequality.  As popular NZ HERAOLD columnist Jim Hopkins wrote: "(Discrimination) happens all the time.  If equality was parliaments objective, there'd be no minimum drinking age, no ban on bigamy or specified drugs, no requirement to pass a test to get a driver's licence and no Maori seats either."

This is complete bollocks and a good example of a straw man argument as well as an argument from authority, although I'm not sure how much authority a New Zealand opinion columnist can conjure up.  Lets clear this up, equality is about making prejudice irrelevant.  Biologically I can, to an extent, agree that homosexuals are not the same as they have chemical differences, but in all other parts of life they are still Homo Sapiens Sapiens so this argument falls a little flat.  Apart from a possible campness of male homosexuals there is no telling them apart from heterosexuals.  Bob bases this discrimination on the quote of one person... doesn't wash.

6. THE "RIGHT" TO MARRY?

Marriage rightly discriminates.  A 14-year-old cannot get married.  Three of four people cannot get married to each other.  A person who is currently married cannot marry another person.  A father cannot marry his adult daughter.  A mother cannot marry her adult son.  Even those wanting "equality" believe there should be restrictions - which shows that even they believe that marriage is not an absolute right for everybody or every type of romantic relationship.

Does that mean Downs Syndrome people cannot get married?  Of course this is a hyperbole but so is that statement.  Statement 6 is full of Straw Man Arguments designed to bring attention away from discrimination.  

7. SPECIAL RIGHTS?

In 2004, the government introduced civil unions and changed over 150 pieces of legislation to provide legal recognition and protection for same-sex relationships in NZ.  There is currently no discrimination in the law against same-sex couples.  Why do we now need to provide special rights?

I don't know where to start on this one, it is so far out of reality I don't know what to say.  But lets try, after all, I'm a writer.  The amount of legislation that changed to acknowledge black people to be equal to white people is about the same... to provide legal recognition to our fellow humans.  We do not need to provide "special rights" for gay people, we just have to acknowledge them as human hence allowing them to be married in the eyes of a non judgmental government which has allowed religions of all kinds, no matter how stupid they are, to practice their myth based beliefs.

8. WHAT ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS?

For many, marriage is more that what merely affects us personally.  This bill isn't just a simple change in the wording of a current law.  It is proposing the complete redefinition of an institution as it has existed fro thousands of years.

Most of what this statement is saying is just wrong.  Wrong.  Marriage is an evolving institution, which more and more has nothing to do with god or anybody else that the people who are being married to have anything to do with.  If you want to get married in a secular way without the utterance of the magical being called god then you can; this could be considered another straw man argument based on the logical fallacy called argument from antiquity.  The changes in the laws of marriage over the thousands of years make statement # 8 void of all meaning.  If you are getting married religious or secular to the one you love, do all other marriages make any difference to you whatsoever?  I think not.  This is a bond by the law of the land, not some 1600 year old book.

This is the second part, many to come - after all, we have 21 points to get through.  Please comment as this is not just a one sided debate and please, if you agree with what I have said, spread the word. 

I write this blog because it is a passion of mine to explore the myth of god and along the way I may even learn some cool stuff but it takes a lot of time and energy to write so if you enjoy reading this blog please make a donation by clicking the DONATE button on the right so I can put more time into creating a better blog.

Thank you all

Justin

THE PROBLEM WITH RELIGION - ANTI SAME SEX MARRIAGE MOVEMENT PART 1; BOB MCCOSKRIE

To preface, this is specific to New Zealand but could apply to any country that has the same debate running. Should Same Sex Marriage be legalised?  I guess it's all a matter of opinion really and once you have done you're research and looked at both sides of the argument you can make an informed decision.  The problem you can often run into is misinformation that masquerades as fact like the flyer I got in the mail today.  As I read it I became angry and just had to dig a little further to see if my disgust of this propaganda was justified. 

You may wonder why I have included this as part of the According To God blog when it's not a case of equal rights and not really a religious issue but when I turned to page three of the pamphlet I saw that it was production of Family First NZ which at first glance looks like a secular organisation set up to help New Zealand families.  My skeptical radar went blip so I checked out the "ABOUT US" page and read all the way to the bottom to find this:

Family First will: speak from a family friendly perspective with an emphasis on the Judeo-Christian values which have benefited New Zealand for generations. 

That's when I realised what their agenda really was so I'll go over each of the 21 points to see if there is any validity to it.

1. MARRIAGE IS FOUNDATIONAL

Throughout history and in virtually all human societies, marriage has always been a union between men and women.  Marriage predates both the organised church and the state.  The State should not presume to re-engineer a natural human institution.

Marriage has evolved over many thousands of years, in other words the meaning of marriage has changed a huge amount of times.  Marriage is a legal bond... that's right, legal, meaning recognised my the State and the state has the ability to change the laws when enough people demand, with justification, a law change by voting.  Marriage as we know it has it's foundation in the government.

2. BIOLOGY, NOT BIGOTRY

Marriage combines the complementary characteristics of men and women as defined by nature.  Nature is exclusive and discriminatory in that only the union of a man and a woman can produce another life.  It makes sense to treat something so unique in a unique way.

This is the nice way to say "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."  Well, sometimes nature (or God if you like) screws up and babies don't happen between a man and a woman and sometimes the chemical make up (nature or god, your choice) of a man or a woman is screwed up and they prefer the same sex.  This is not, as some religious zealots claim, a choice; after all, would you chose to be with the same sex if you are not gay?  No.

3. FOR MARRIAGE, NOT AGAINST PEOPLE

This debate is not a discussion about whether homosexuals are good people or not.  Every human being should be treated with dignity and respect.  However, many people in the homosexual community also do not agree with same-sex marriage.  They are not "homophobic" or "bigoted".  Everyone has a right to love whom they choose, but nobody has the right to redefine marriage.

I had a ball with this one, in fact this is the statement that got me so angry I had to write about it.  Not only did I do just that (goes without saying) but I emailed the man responsible, Bob McCoskrie with a few questions.  The main problem I had was with the phrase "many people in the homosexual community also do not agree with same-sex marriage.  The first email I sent (see below) was sent to the only email address, admin@familyfirst.org.nz

Hi,

 

I just got your latest flyer called "21 Great reasons to keep marriage as is" and I wanted to ask about reason #3 "For marriage, not against people".  Within that paragraph is a statement that reads; "However, many people in the homosexual community also do not agree with same-sex marriage."

 

Could you please give me references from where that information was sourced.

 

Thank you

Justin Harnish 

To my surprise I got an email back from the man himself.  I got a "Hi Justin" and a lick to a YouTube video.

Hmmm, not much to go by there so I emailed back with...

Hi Bob,

You referenced a you tube video which said the same thing but with no actual statistics. This you tube video is produced by another Christian organisation like your own and in the video cited only a couple of gay spokes people. Dr Sharon James also cited Ben SummerSkill, leader of Stonewall. Legalising same sex marriage is 4th on Stonewalls's list of priorities.

Do you have non bias statistics or some kind of survey you can show me to back up both Dr Sharon James and your own statement which seems to be taken directly from the you tube video?

Thank you

Justin Harnish

He replied with "Yes - anecdotal, oh - plus" and proceeded to list a number of quotes and links...

Prominent Irish homosexual and political commentator Richard Waghorn

Australian Gay Activist Professor Dennis Altman published in the Australian Literary Review 2/2/11

Mitchel Raphael, editor in chief of Fab, a popular gay magazine in Toronto

OK, so a couple of opinion articles from gays NOT in New Zealand.  I emailed back.

Hi Bob,

Thank you for that, but having a look at this small hand-full we have Irish, Australian and Canadian Gays talking about why, in essence, they don't want their promiscuity to be hampered by a monogamous marriage. Homosexuals will not have children naturally, no argument, they would have to go through a very difficult adoption process and if they succeed they are seen to be good parents in the eyes of the state which is more than I can say for a lot of legitimately married men and women who don't have to go through that process.

You are right, this is anecdotal opinions from a very select hand full of non-New Zealand people and by no stretch could you or anybody call this "many" when you consider, best guess, about 10% (a theory devised by Dr Alfred Kinsey) of New Zealanders are homosexual (around 450,000) and are being discriminated against.

By telling people of New Zealand that "many" gays are against same sex marriage with out the statistics to back you up, and indeed, there is very little information outside of the census to give any indication of your claims; you are spreading misinformation. In fact, gay communities are pushing for the same sex marriage for equality. To say gay people cannot get married is like saying black people have to sit at the back of the bus or women can't vote... it's an antiquated ideal. Marriage is a legal bond between a man and a woman not a religious bond. It is recognised by law therefore IS a state issue. A secular marriage is still a legal bond by the way.

Your comments are welcome.

Thank you

Justin Harnish

He emailed back with... 

10% is definitely a theory!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hilarious

I'm about to make an ad hominem attack... what a dick!  I email back...

Bob, I'm asking you a serious question.  If you are trying to appeal to the country to stop the legalisation of same sex marriage you need to have answers for these questions and use facts and not disingenuous statements and other peoples opinion articles.  

He replied...

When you compare homosexuality with the civil rights movement - which even the civil rights leaders reject - and quote pedophile Kinsey, it's very hard to be serious

We completely stand by what we wrote

Cheers

Bob McCoskrie

National Director - Family First NZ

bob@familyfirst.org.nz

Says it all really, doesn't it.  I didn't email back as I felt I would just be flogging a dead horse and quite frankly could't see him giving me any more answers or facts about his claims.

This is just the first part of my blog report on a clear cut, undercover discrimination from a religious bigot.  Feel free to leave a comment or email Bob McCoskrie, bob@familyfirst.org.nz and let him know you are not impressed.

More to come.

I write this blog because it is a passion of mine to explore the myth of god and along the way I may even learn some cool stuff but it takes a lot of time and energy to write so if you enjoy reading this blog please make a donation by clicking the DONATE button on the right so I can put more time into creating a better blog.

Thank you all

Justin

BIRTH IN THE DAWN - THE HAWAIIAN CREATION STORY

This story comes from the Kumulipo which is a work of poetry that is chanted to tell the of the origin of the world in a very remarkable way.  I really like this story because of the evolutionary undertones which tell me the Hawaiian's had a better grasp on how things came about than most creation story tellers.  The Kumulipo was translated by Martha Warren Beckwith and published in 1951

When the earth first became hot and the heavens churned and the sun was dark, land emerged from the slime of the sea. The deepest darkness of caverns, a male, and the moonless darkness of night, a female, gave birth to the simple lifeforms of the sea. The coral that builds islands was born, and the grub, the sea cucumber, the sea urchin, the barnacle, the mussel, the limpet, and cowry, and the conch and other shellfish. Born was the seagrass, guarded by the tough landgrass on land; born was the Manauea moss of the sea, matched by the Manauea taro plant on land; born was the Kele seaweed, and the Ekele plant of the land.  

This story begins with a vague similarity to a science text book about the formation of the planet but then we get to the second half of the sentence where land was formed by slime.  Then we find out that a cave is a male and the darkness is a female who gives birth to to simple sea dwelling life forms.  First of all, a cave and the darkness are different species so how did they mate?  At least the islands made from coral makes sense.

Next the deep darkness of the deep sea and darkness broken by slivers of light in the moonlit forest gave birth to the fish of the sea. The porpoise was born, and the shark, and the goatfish, and the eel, and the octopus, and the stingray, and the bonito, and the albacore, and the mackerel and mullet, and the sturgeon. Born was the Kauila eel of the sea, matched by the Kauila tree on land; born was the Kupoupou fish of the sea, and the Kou tree on land; born was the A'awa fish of the sea, guarded by the 'Awa plant of the land. Trains of walruses and schools of fish swam past the coral ridges, still in the darkness of night.

At the very least this is a nice story.

Next darkness of night and night that just barely breaks into dawn gave birth to the flying creatures. The caterpillar was born, and the moth to which it leads; the ant was born, and the dragonfly that it becomes; the grub was born, and the grasshopper that it becomes. The snipe was born, and the turnstone and the mudhen, and the crow and the rail, and the albatross and the curlew, and the stilt and the heron. Born was the sea-duck of the islands, and the wild duck that lives on land; born was Hehe bird of the sea, matched by the Nene goose on land.

Sounds like a very simple version of evolution - kind of.  Just have to add a couple billion years and change the word "born" into "developed" and there you have it!

Next, as the sea advanced onto the land and passed back and forth across it, the light of earliest dawn and half-darkness produced the crawling creatures that come from the sea. The rough-backed turtle was born, and the horn-billed turtle and the dark-red turtle. The lobster and gecko were born and the mud-dwelling creatures that leave their tracks in the sand. Born was the Wili sea-borer of the sea, and the Wilwili tree on land; born was the Opeope jellyfish of the sea, and the Oheohe bamboo of the land. Thus the crawling animals were born in the night, creeping and crawling onto the land.

It seems to me the Hawaiian's knew what they were talking about to an extent.  The birds weren't around before the first creatures crawled on land but that can be forgiven when we understand how long ago this story was told.  It's very Darwinesque.  It was still dark and that is where the story fails I think.

Next were born the animals of the land, including the dog and rat. Then, in the stillness as the light of dawn came across the land, were born La'ila'i, a woman, and Ki'i, a man, and Kane, a god, and Kanaloa, the octopus. From the union of La'ila'i with Ki'i and Kane came humanity, waves of people who came from afar. Born was Hahapo'el, a girl, and Ha-popo, another girl, in the upland valleys whence chiefs arose. Born were humans, spreading across the earth, and now it was day.

So I guess all the things that were born up until now all happened in just one night, well that is one interpretation of it.  Another way to look at it, with some poetic license, is this was the "dawn" of mankind.  Who knows, none of us were there when it was written so we just have to take it for what it is, a very nice story of creation by the Hawaiian's.

I write this blog because it is a passion of mine to explore the myth of god and along the way I may even learn some cool stuff but it takes a lot of time and energy to write so if you enjoy reading this blog please make a donation by clicking the DONATE button on the right so I can put more time into creating a better blog.

Thank you all

Justin