“Gay” ‘marriage’ shunned by “gays” as largely meaningless

April 20, 2013 by Leave a Comment

In the Netherlands, the first country in the world to introduce “gay” ‘marriage’ on 1 April 2001, a Survey by Rutgers World Population Foundation, a centre of expertise on sexual and reproductive health and rights, suggests that about 500,000 people call themselves “gay”. Yet from 1 April 2001 to 2005, only 3% of them married.

This Figure of 3% and the decline in the numbers of same-sex ‘marriages’ (SSM) per year following that law change, strongly suggests that for 97% of Dutch “gays”, the institution of “gay” ‘marriage’ is largely irrelevant, unpopular and/or meaningless. In the 5th year (2005) such “gay” ‘marriages’ plummeted by 56% compared to those registered in 2001. From 2001 to 2002 the numbers dropped by 28%, from 2002 to 2004 by 33% and between 2004 and 2005 by 8%.

In the Netherlands registered partnerships were introduced in Dutch laws for “gays” on 1 January 1998, before SSMs. “Gay” marriage (SSM) was introduced into law later (2001) because these registered partnerships were seen to be legally deficient by “gays”.

New Zealand introduced civil unions into law in 2004 for “gay” couples seeking legal recognition, but they have proved to be very unpopular for “gays” who have demanded, and  now secured, on 17 April 2013, the right to be married in law in the same manner as heterosexuals.

If “gay” ‘marriage’ continues to be treated by “gays” in the Netherlands with the same contempt and/or disinterest as they treated “registered partnerships”, then the numbers of all such registered “gay” relationships will decline further to a point that these new ‘institutions’ could well go extinct like the dinosaurs.

In New Zealand civil unions have proved just as unpopular for “gays” as civil partnerships in the Netherlands, and also been criticised as meaningless and degrading by prominent homosexuals in the media, “gay” university academics and “gay” SSM lobbyists.

Ironically those who oppose the legalization of same-sex ‘marriage’ and seek to promote traditional (heterosexual) marriage are treated with contempt by many “gay” activists and the pro-“gay” media in New Zealand, who label them as dinosaurs, outdated and unable to adapt to the new ‘moral’ “gay” climate. However, such critics fail to recognise the Darwinian evolutionary principle of “survival of the fittest”: it is not the unfit (the sterile, the unnatural etc.) that survive!

Neither of the homosexual participants in “gay” ‘marriage’ can ever share together in any exclusive act of procreation via “gay” sexual activity. Their joint sexual acts are never orientated towards procreation. A “gay” couple can never together play any joint biological role in evolution. Their relationship differs fundamentally from a tradition marriage which involves a male and a female.

From 2001 to 2003 the population growth rate in the Netherlands had declined from 0.55% to 0.50% and by 2011 it had dropped to 0.38%. This decline was temporarily reversed in 2004 (0.50 to 0.58%). The possible correlation between these declines and the drive for SSM law is of interest to researchers.

“Gay” couples are unable to be biological joint-parents of any child as they cannot consummate their ‘marriages’ in the natural heterosexual act (sexual intercourse) which is fundamental to human procreation. It is only via in vitro fertilization, surrogacy or some other ‘technology’ that one partner of a “gay” couple can become a biological parent. The other same-sex partner may in law be designated as the second ‘mother’ (in the case of a lesbian couple) or ‘father’ in the case of a homosexual male couple; but neither such ‘mother’ or ‘father’ can be a biological parent to the child.

References:

Ref. 1 Gay marriage: preaching to the unconverted. April 19, 2013

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/192876ce-a6f3-11e2-885b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2QyNnBrob

Ref. 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_Netherlands

Ref. 3

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=nl&v=24

Definition of Population growth rate: The average annual percent change in the population, resulting from a surplus (or deficit) of births over deaths and the balance of migrants entering and leaving a country. The rate may be positive or negative. The growth rate is a factor in determining how great a burden would be imposed on a country by the changing needs of its people for infrastructure (e.g., schools, hospitals, housing, roads), resources (e.g., food, water, electricity), and jobs. Rapid population growth can be seen as threatening by neighboring countries.

Filed Under: Homosexuality, Marriage, Sexual Dysfunction

Homosexual Activist Admits True Purpose of Battle is to Destroy Marriage

April 19, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Even knowing that there are radicals in all movements, doesn’t  lessen the startling admission recently by lesbian journalist Masha Gessen.  On a radio show she actually admits that homosexual activists are lying about their radical political agenda.  She says that they don’t want to access the institution of marriage; they want to radically redefine and eventually eliminate it.

Here is what she recently said on a radio interview:

“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.

I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”

(Source: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/why-get-married/4058506)

For quite some time, the defenders of natural marriage have attempted to point out that the true agenda behind the homosexual demands organizations is not marriage equality; it is the total unraveling of marriage and uprooting traditional values from society.  (This will ultimately include efforts to silence and punish some churches that openly adhere to their religious teachings about marriage and sexual morality.)

While few have been as vocal as this lesbian activist was in this interview, we do have numerical examples proving her point.  When given the opportunity to marry, after laws have been struck down relatively small percentages of homosexuals actually bother to marry compared to their heterosexual counterparts.  This raises question about the true need to unravel marriage for the “fair” extension its benefits.  Only 12 percent of homosexuals in the Netherlands marry compared to 86 percent of their heterosexual peers.  Less than 20 percent of same-sex couples already living together in California married when given the chance in 2008.  In contrast, 91 percent of heterosexual couples in California who are living together are married.

Clearly this is about cultural change and tearing down the traditional family ethic, since it seems that most homosexuals living together neither need nor desire to marry, though they do desire to radically change marriage.

Gays and lesbians are free to live as they choose, and we live in a society which roundly applauds them doing so like never before in our history, but they do not have the right to rewrite marriage for all of society.

Source:

Homosexual Activist Admits True Purpose of Battle is to Destroy Marriage – by Michah Clark

http://illinoisfamily.org/homosexuality/homosexual-activist-admits-true-purpose-of-battle-is-to-destroy-marriage/

Micah Clark

In 1989 Micah Clark graduated from Southwest Baptist University in Bolivar, Missouri with a bachelor’s degree in Political Science. Micah interned as a member of the Indiana House of Representatives’…

Full bio and more from Micah Clark

Visit: http://illinoisfamily.org/author/?id=888

Note:

Masha Gessen is a Russian-American journalist and editor of the Russian-language Snob magazine.
Her latest book is called The Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin

Filed Under: Homosexuality, Marriage, Sexual Dysfunction Tagged With: , , , ,

TV3 Campbell Live ‘Marriage-Equality bill’ poll: 78% opposed to bill (17,000 responses)

April 18, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Last night (17 April) TV3 Campbell Live ran a poll on Louisa Wall’s same-sex ‘marriage’ bill (the so-called ‘Marriage-Equality bill’)  and there were “nearly 17,000″ respondents (by text) to the question: “Do you support the ‘Marriage-Equality bill’?” – YES or NO.

TV3 host John Campbell announced the results at the end of the programme: 78% opposed to bill (“NO”) and only 22% supported it (“YES”). Campbell stated that he believed this was the second largest number of responses ever received to a TV3 poll.

In Parliament last night the Bill was supported at its Third Reading by a majority of MPs: 77 in favour: 43 opposed. This result is a total reversal of the TV3 poll results and shows that opponents of the bill are right in demanding a referendum on this issue.

Why has there been a total media blackout on this highly significant TV3 poll result that strongly suggest that the majority of MPs have misjudged the strength of public opinion against this bill?

Filed Under: Marriage Tagged With: ,

Society forced to change its Constitution due to legally flawed ‘Gay’ ‘marriage’ bill

April 17, 2013 by Leave a Comment

SPCS Media Release: 17 April 2013

Parliament has voted tonight to make same-sex ‘marriage’ legal. The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment bill was passed at the Third Reading stage by a majority vote of 77 to 44.

In anticipation that this bill would probably be passed the Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. (“SPCS”) added a definition of “marriage” in its constitution in response to the utter confusion generated by the promoters of Louisa Wall’s legally flawed and dishonest bill that seeks to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. The bill also erroneously asserts in its Explanatory Note, that the Principal Act – the Marriage Act 1955 – discriminates against ‘gay’ couples. (It does NOT ! see Quilter v. Attorney General [1998]).

At its Annual General Meeting on 28 January 2013 chaired by Society President, John Mills, a Kapiti Coast  businessman, Society members voted unanimously to add a definition of marriage to section 2(c) of its Constitution: “Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”. This now clarifies the longstanding object 2(c): “To promote wholesome personal values, including strong family life and the benefits of lasting marriage as the foundation for stable communities.”

Without this change to its Constitution (which now uses the same words to define “marriage” taken from Australian legislation passed in 1984 – The Marriage Legislation Amendment Act 1984) – the Society would be required (by its own Constitution) “to promote … the benefits of lasting [heterosexual] marriage” as well as ‘gay marriage’ … “ as the foundation for stable communities.” To do the latter would be anathema to the Society, as it holds to the universally held view that marriage is a unique loving relationship involving two persons of opposite gender: one male and one female, a relationship that by nature is orientated towards the generation of and nurturing of children. In contrast no gay couple can between themselves produce children (the relationship is biologically sterile).

The concept of ‘gay marriage’ as pointed out by Society spokesperson, David Lane, to the Government Administration Committee, in the Society’s oral submission on the bill, is an oxymoron.

To see the Society’s written submission on the bill go to:

http://www.spcs.org.nz/2012/submission-on-the-marriage-amendment-bill/

To see the Society’s revised constitution go to www.societies.govt.nz (Inc. Soc. No. 217833)

To contact the Society for further comment use: spcs.org@gmail.com or “SPCS” P.O. Box 13-683 Johnsonville 6440

Filed Under: Marriage

Same-sex marriage. “Openly lesbian” Labour MP Louisa Wall in a civil union, has no marriage plans

April 17, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Ms Louisa Wall, the “openly lesbian” 41-year old Manurewa Labour MP who is “the architect of the most significant change to New Zealand marriage law”, is reported in the NZ Herald today to have “an admission to make – she has no plans to get married”. She is currently in a civil union which could be ‘upgraded’ to a ‘marriage’ if her bill is passed, but she is not interested in doing so.

Her private members bill – the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill – was selected from the ballot and introduced to parliament on 26 July 2012 and is expected to be voted into law at its Third Reading in parliament tonight. It amends the Marriage Act 1955 to legalise same-sex ‘marriage’.

In an interview published in Womens Weekly earlier this year, Louisa Wall said she has been in a civil union since 2011 with partner Prue Tamatekapua (Prue Kapua), a mother-of-two and a lawyer specialising in Treaty of Waitangi issues, whom she met in 2007.  They had their civil union ceremony at Te Mahurehure Marae in Point Chevalier, Auckland, where 200 guests helped celebrate their union in 2010.

Louisa told the NZ Herald:

“For Prue and I the most important thing when we wanted to formalise our relationship was to have our parents there. Having a Civil Union satisfied us.”

She added: “That was the only choice we had. If the law does change, and we can marry, then we will be able to have a conversation about that.”

The new bill will mean that couples in a civil union can simply ­fill in a form to change their status to that of a married couple. But Louisa and Prue aren’t going down that route, she told Womens Weekly.

While comfortable with her own personal situation, Louisa believes it’s vitally important for individuals and couples to have options.

Opponents of her bill have every reason to question her motivation and integrity in promoting her bill given that she and her LGBT (lesbian, “gay”, bisexual and transsexual) supporters have been pushing for “gay marriage” based on claims that civil unions are largely “meaningless” for their community and they need “marriage” instead to be truly happy, fulfilled and able to jointly adopt children. If so, why has the “champion” of this bill shown so little interest in getting married even though her lesbian partner has two children?

When did Louisa Wall conclude that she was a lesbian?

She said she had been too distracted by netball at high school – she was New Zealand’s youngest-ever Silver Fern – to question her sexuality, but began to feel she might be “gay” at age 19.

When she was 21, Ms Wall found a partner and came out to her parents.

“I’ve never not been out,” she told Womens Weekly. “I think I realised I was gay in my late teens and from then on I’ve had female partners. “For me, it’s always been a part of who I am, so I’ve never felt a need not to share that.”

[If it's true that she's "never not been out" then how come she only discovered she might be a lesbian at the age of 19? The two statements are incompatible]

After she “drifted apart” from her partner of 10 years, she met Prue while working at the Waiatarau Branch of the Maori Women’s Welfare League.

Womens Weekly reported:

“Now, with Prue at her side and achieving recognition as one of Parliament’s youngest MPs, there is only one thing missing in Louisa’s life – a baby. While she would love to be a mother and has tried to conceive in the past, her efforts have been unsuccessful.”

What is far clearer is that Louisa Wall and her supporters have failed to convince the majority of New Zealanders that there is any good reason that the Marriage Act 1955 should be amended to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. Over half the country oppose her bill. It is  clear that Louisa Wall’s bill has split the country and a lesbian woman who has no interest in marriage herself is prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to undermine an institution that has served the public good well. Not only does the bill make a mockery of the terms “husband” and “wife” and “marriage”, but it is an attack on the natural and normal sexuality that is engaged in by those joined in the traditional marriage bond. New Zealanders are being sold the lie via state legislation that heterosexual sex within marriage is equal or equivalent to the forms of sexual expression engaged in by homosexuals.  

References:

Gay marriage: Wall has no marriage plans. By Isaac Davison

April 17, 2013

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10877993

Labour MP Louisa Wall: Fighting for our rights. By Vicky Tyler

New Zealand’s Women’s Weekly. 28th March 2013

http://www.nzwomansweekly.co.nz/celebrity/labour-mp-louisa-wall-fighting-for-our-rights/

Meet “your” gay and lesbian MPs
By GayNZ.com Daily News staff
28th November 2011

http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/33/printer_11118.php

Filed Under: Homosexuality, Marriage Tagged With: , , , , ,

Man-brides boogie to Beyonce in support of “gay” ‘marriage’ – TV3 News

April 17, 2013 by Leave a Comment

 

A group of 10 men flaunting wedding gowns paraded through the capital this afternoon, ahead of tonight’s final reading of the same-sex marriage bill.

The male brides were joined by their female counterparts who performed a rendition of Beyonce’s ‘Single Ladies’ at Midland Park in front of lunching Wellington workers.

A bouquet was thrown, confetti was sprinkled and kisses were shared at the demonstration.

The group are supporting Labour MP Louisa Wall’s bill, which passed its first reading last year. MPs will vote on it for the final time tonight.

The male brides will join hundreds of others expected to rally outside Parliament in support of the bill at 10pm.

3 News

http://www.3news.co.nz/Man-brides-boogie-to-Beyonce/tabid/309/articleID/294607/Default.aspx

Filed Under: Homosexuality, Sexual Dysfunction

Poll: “Does equality require same-sex marriage?” – NZ Herald’s loaded ‘question’

April 16, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Today the NZ Herald is running a ‘poll’ on the ‘same-sex marriage’ bill based on the loaded question: “Does equality require same-sex marriage?”

See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10877696

The background article presents the case for the bill (“Yes”) put by Sam Clements, followed by the case against (“No”) by Professor of Law from Otago University, Rex Ahdar.

Sam Clements begins his case (quoted in italics) by stating:

It is logically flawed, and a nonsensical argument to suggest the redefinition of marriage by the state is in effect an attempt “‘to abolish it”. How absolutist and sweeping a statement.

Response from SPCS

Mr Clements has failed to distinguish between the effect of an action by a person or agent and their intention. They are two quite distinct matters. Likewise he fails to appreciate that the effect (consequence) of any action may be intended or unintended. His simplistic comments overlooks these matters. Clement’s accusatory sweeping and simplistic statement is itself logically flawed.

Traditional (conjugal) marriage is universally recognised as an honourable institution and highly beneficial to society. If its universally accepted meaning as involving one man and one woman is degraded, altered, negated, or compromised by tampering with its definition, for whatever reason, this will undoubtedly have a negative social/societal impact, in particular in relation to the welfare of children.

It is not logically flawed to claim that the effect of legalising same-sex ‘marriage’   (SSM) could or will lead to the ‘abolition’ of the true meaning of the term “marriage”. It is quite another matter to assert that the state is deliberately attempting to do this. Many of those opposed to the bill do see it as an attack on religious freedom and the institution of marriage, given that it renders the concept “marriage” meaningless. Why? Because expanding it to include SSM degrades it as SSM is an oxymoron.

Many homosexual activists pushing for the bill have publicly stated that civil unions are “meaningless” even though they campaigned so passionately for them in 2002 to 2004. What utter hypocrisy!  Just nine years ago homoxsexuals were dancing in the streets applauding the passage of the Civil Union Bill into law, now they say it is largely irrelevant after having got on their knees before the select committee to plead with them to accept their claim that civil unions are so meaningfull to their communities.

Sam Clements continues:

This bill seeks to grant same-sex couples the ability to marry, and in so doing bring formal societal recognition to their committed and loving relationships, which are no different to those of heterosexual couples.

Comment from SPCS

The so-called “equity” argument he uses is deficient. Of course all persons have the human right to love (within lawful bounds) whom they will. A woman school teacher can fall in love with her 14 year-old female student and the feeling may be mutual, but that does not entitle her to lawfully have sexual relations with her student, let alone ‘marry’ her. Loving relationships expressed intimately within the marriage bond are fundamentally different to ‘loving’ (commercial) relationships expressed between a man a prostitute even if she happens to have a deep affection and love for him.

Conjugal traditional marriage is not equal to same-sex marriage. The first involves the complementarity of the two sexes – physically, emotionally, psychologically and spiritually which SSM does not. It also has a biological orientation towards procreation which SSM does not. No amount of sexual activity between members of a same-sex couple will ever result in a child. Those in traditional who chose to adopt a child, often when they cannot have their own, can offer that child a mother’s and father’s love. A homosexual couple cannot.

Sam Clements continues:

Some appear fixated with the idea that “sexual union” is only truly possible from a marital perspective when it is between a man and a woman.

In essence, placing the ability to procreate as emblematic proof of this. This is one of the sadder and more naive statements often raised by opponents of the bill.

Response from SPCS

Clements: In a condescending tone Clements describes the bill’s opponents as sad cases who are naive.

For from it. Opponents of the bill actually understand the true nature of traditional marriage and why it must be differentiated from SSM (as noted above), while bill supporters ignore them.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10877696

Sam Clements holds graduate degrees in arts and commerce from the University of Auckland. He is a lifetime inducted member of international honour society Beta Gamma Sigma. samclements9@gmail.com

To view a decisive rebuttal of Clement’s position read Rex Ahdar’s view below Clement’s.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10877696

 

Filed Under: Homosexuality, Marriage Tagged With: ,

Same-sex ‘marriage’ v. real marriage: Consummation, intimacy and covenant relationship

April 15, 2013 by Leave a Comment

The gay lobby and their useful id##ts in the government and media have brilliantly manipulated the limited public debate about same-sex marriage by capturing the word ‘equality’. But by framing it as an equalities and human rights issue they have messed with our language and wilfully disregarded the underlying realities.

The problem is that biology, nature or God (which I prefer, of course) has ensured that a same-sex couple can never undertake the act of marriage no matter how much they love each other or how long they live together. Two men (or two women) are physically unable to be naturally intimate and consummate their union through an activity that unites them and has the potential to reproduce and provide the next generation.

This is the essence of marriage and, further, in its purest ideal it is the private act that follows the public exchange of vows and signing of public documents; it is the intimate deed of physical and spiritual union that on the marriage night completes the coming together of two individuals and engages them in the mystical mathematics of procreation: 1+1 = 1 = 3+. It is consummation which transforms the marriage ceremony from a contract to a covenant.

I’m aware of course that the ideal is more honoured in the breach than the observance as today few couples refrain from sexual relations until the wedding night and many choose to co-habit rather than marry. But, for instance, financial honesty is another ideal that is vital to society’s wellbeing and is enshrined in the nation’s law. The fact that it is breached by everyone from corporate fat-cat tax fiddlers to single mums who falsely claim benefits and students who bunk the bus doesn’t deny the importance of the ideal. We have not (yet) attempted to redefine honesty and make it more inclusive …..

I am also aware that by choice or disability some married couples do not procreate. But this too doesn’t change the marriage ideal or its social value.

Of course two men or two women can have a legally-defined relationship which may or may not be called a civil partnership. A lesbian couple or two spinster sisters may love each other and live together all their adult lives; certainly where necessary the state ought to provide for them by statute. (The state currently and unfairly provides for the first but not the second) But they can no more be married than they can defy gravity.

Consummation is so central to marriage that it too is enshrined in the nation’s law which decrees that marriage is voidable if it is not consummated.

See: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1973/18#section-12

This is the crux of the matter: the hard reality is that consummation physically cannot take place except between heterosexuals so the government has been forced to fudge and create a fundamental inequality in its ‘equal marriage’. Through the legislation and unlike heterosexual couples, same-sex couples will be exempted from any need to consummate their ‘marriage’.

So what’s in the word? They are married but not married. They are one but not one. They are the same but not the same. They are equivalent but certainly not equal.

It is Through The Looking-Glass stuff and a socially destructive confusion of the meaning of marriage by the government: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less”.

In the next post we will look at other inequalities and the discrimination against minorities that will be created if the Bill becomes law. Meanwhile I’m praying that politically the Dumpty in Downing Street has a great fall over his Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill.

Source: For complete article see:

Unequal Marriage – 1. Posted 22/03/2013 by Alan Angle

http://www.alansangle.com/?cat=135

For details on Alan Angle see: http://www.alansangle.com/?page_id=2

Filed Under: Homosexuality, Marriage, Sexual Dysfunction Tagged With: ,

Family First NZ’s “21 Reasons Why Marriage Matters” mailout brochure ruled within advertsing laws

April 15, 2013 by Leave a Comment

The Chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in a ruling dated 12 April 2013, stated that it had “No Grounds to Proceed” over a formal complaint lodged by “A. Charman” on 25 March 2013 about Family First’s “21 Great Reasons to Keep Marriage as is” brochure (Complaint No 13107).

To view and download the outstanding 24-page colour full brochure, highly recommended by SPCS and supplied to all MPs, go to:

http://www.nzmarriage.org.nz/21-Reasons-Why-Marriage-Matters.pdf

The complainant claimed that the brochure’s “extraordinarily offensive” on the grounds that it allegedly equates same-sex marriage with paedophilia and incest; denigrates children of same-sex couples and advocates for the need for children to have “a mother and a father” which was hurtful to children of single-parent and same-sex families.

The complainant also said the brochure was “inflammatory, largely incorrect and was filled with biases”.

[SPCS has assessed these complaints and determined that they are spurious and absurd and would not be supported by any reasonable-minded New Zealander]

However the ASA says the brochure is an advocacy advertisement of a religious nature which presents a point of view from a particular organisation which, in this case, advocates against the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill that’s currently before Parliament.

Its Chairman “acknowledged the sincere concerns” of the person who complained, but says the law allows for robust expression of belief or opinion in ads, irrespective of the message.

Please download and distribute this valuable resource: http://www.nzmarriage.org.nz/21-Reasons-Why-Marriage-Matters.pdf

Filed Under: Advertising Stardards Authority, Censorship, Homosexuality, Marriage Tagged With: , , ,

Religious freedom & ‘gay marriage’ cannot coexist- by attorney Matt Barber

April 15, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Therefore pride is their necklace; they clothe themselves with violence. – Psalm 73:6

“Gay pride” necessitates anti-Christian hate. It must. “Gay marriage” and other “sexual orientation”-based laws do violence to freedom and truth. They are the hammer with which the postmodern left intends to bludgeon bloody religious liberty and the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic.

According to the unequivocal moral precepts of the Judeo-Christian tradition – explicit throughout both the Old and New Testaments – homosexual behavior is sin. Sin is evil. Homosexual behavior is the central, defining characteristic of so-called “gay marriage.” Therefore, “gay marriage” is evil. Christians are obligated to avoid sin – to “do no evil.”

I know; it’s not popular to speak such simple truths in today’s politically correct world. But I’m not out to win a popularity contest.

Most homosexuals know intuitively, I think, that their lifestyle is unnatural and immoral and that the oxymoronic notion of “same-sex marriage” is a silly farce. Thus, they must force others to affirm both their self-destructive lifestyle and their mock “marriages” under penalty of law. They must physically compel everyone to engage their “emperor’s new clothes” delusion, so they can feel better about bad behavior.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/religious-freedom-gay-marriage-cannot-coexist/#AyFzLwKZEllmz8gF.99

Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating on constitutional law. He serves as vice president of Liberty Counsel Action – http//libertycounselaction.org 

Filed Under: Homosexuality, Marriage Tagged With: , , , , ,
«Older Posts
%d bloggers like this: