Kim Hill interviews Oxford Professor John Lennox. Here is the MP3:
Family Life International NZ, a registered charity that is pro-life, has organised and sponsored a Public Talk on 11th and 14th April entitled “Same Sex ‘Marriage’ and the Threat to Religious Freedom – the Canadian Experience“
Thursday 11th April 2013
St Anne’s Parish Hall • Emmett Street • Newtown • Wellington
Easy access and plenty of car parks. A collection will be taken to defray expenses.
For more information please contact Clare 04 237 8343 or firstname.lastname@example.org
or download flyer (available for distribution):
John Henry Westen has written in a recent article entitled:
Do we love those inclined to homosexuality enough to stop same-sex ‘marriage’?
In this battle over same-sex ‘marriage’ it often sounds like those pushing the dismantling of traditional marriage have the upper hand in terms of love. ‘You are opposed to love!’; ‘How does the love between me and my partner affect you in your marriage?’; ‘Why can’t I be allowed to love whomever I choose?’
These are the tough arguments from ‘love’ facing those who are fighting to protect marriage from radical redefinition.
In truth, however, love is the principle reason to fight same-sex ‘marriage.’
You see, law is a teacher and enshrining same-sex ‘marriage’ in law would lead many people to believe that homosexual sexual relations are equal to those of heterosexual married couples. The difficulty, of course, is that while sexual acts between heterosexual married couples can be totally healthy and positive, the same can never be said of sexual acts between persons of the same sex, whether they happen within a relationship given the name “marriage” or not.
For full article go to:
Family Life International NZ, a registered charity, has organised and sponsored a Public Talk entitled “Same Sex ‘Marriage’ and the Threat to Religious Freedom – the Canadian Experience”
Sunday 14th April 2013
Liston Hall • 30-32 Hobson Street • Auckland City
Access is also available via St Patrick’s Square, Wyndham Street
Parking available at the Farmers Carpark for $2.00 (with validation)
As same-sex “marriage” legislation is before our Parliament, with a very real prospect that it will become law in the next few weeks, you are invited to attend this insightful public meeting on the impact same-sex “marriage” has on religious freedom. A Prayer Vigil culminating in a Prayer Procession to St Patrick’s Cathedral for Holy Mass will also take place after John-Henry’s address.
For more information please contact Brendan email@example.com or 09 629 4361
Forces pushing for genderless marriage are a wellspring of fallacies and unanswered questions about the consequences. Let’s explore some of them.
1. What’s love got to do with it?
Nothing. Romanticizing this debate by claiming that any two people in love should have a civil right to civil marriage is a foolish distraction. Neither judges nor legislators have any business discussing “affection” as a factor in defining civil marriage. Clergy who bless marriages have a legitimate and separate role in discerning the internal dynamics of couples. But not the state.
2. What is the state’s interest in marriage?
First, to recognize the union that produces the state’s citizens. Second, to encourage those who sire and bear the citizens to take responsibility for rearing them together. That’s all, folks. Proponents of genderless marriage often answer this question with non sequiturs such as property rights (irrelevant), civil rights (extraneous to the question), and “love and stability” (not a function of state involvement).
3. Why should state interest in marriage be about children if not all marriages produce children?
It’s thoroughly irrelevant that many heterosexual couples lack children because of intent, infertility, age, or health. Claiming that this is relevant to the case for genderless marriage suggests the “fallacy of composition”: inferring that something must be true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. Citizens of the state can exist only through the female-male union, no matter how the union occurs — whether traditionally, artificially, or in a petri dish. That’s the only fact that provides any grounds for state interest in marriage.
4. What about marriage for the sake of same-sex households with children?
We just don’t have the right to deliberately deprive children of knowing their biological mothers or fathers. But genderless marriage ultimately requires us to do this. It requires society to sanction the refashioning of familial bonds in alienating and experimental ways. Use of surrogates and egg or sperm markets put children at ever-increasing risk of being treated more as commodities than as human beings. Laws supporting genderless marriage cannot help but ramp up these trends to newer and crueler levels.
American Thinker, April 6, 2013.
Stella Morabito has published several op-eds on same-sex marriage in The Washington Examiner.
Family First NZ is calling on all New Zealanders who oppose the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill that is scheduled to have its Third Reading in Parliament on Wednesday 17th April 2013, to go online (see link below) and make a “Marriage Pledge” that:
(1) they will not use their electorate vote to vote for an electorate MP who supports changing the definition of marriage, and
(2) they will not use their party vote to vote for a party whose leader supports changing the definition of marriage.
Family First states in an explanatory note assures those making the pledge:
“The politicians have ignored thousands of your submissions. They have ignored calls for a referendum on this massive cultural change – at the same time as demanding a referendum on state asset sales! They have demanded their right for a conscience vote, yet have voted to ignore the consciences of celebrants, registrars, churches hosting weddings, and others in the wedding industry etc. They are ramming this bill through without giving it the due consideration and debate it deserves.
“BUT THEY CAN’T IGNORE YOU AT THE BALLOT BOX! In fact, it’s the one time that they DO have to listen – so they will take notice of this”
WEBSITE ADDRESS TO SUBMIT YOUR PLEDGE:
To download poster/advert on pledge go to:
Submission on The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill to
Government Administration Committee
Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.
Parliament has no authority to redefine marriage and should not presume to engineer changes to a natural institution that constitutes the very fabric of society. Marriage is foundational to understanding and expressing the true nature of our humanity comprising the complementarity of the sexes in true union and the procreation of new life issued from that true union. Same-sex couples have the freedom to form meaningful and legally recognised relationships under the Civil Union Act. The concept of same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage by definition involves a man and a woman and its unique and distinctive quality must be preserved, protected and promoted by the State. The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill should be rejected. The explanations provided in the Bill for amending the principal Act are legally flawed. Amendments to the Civil Union Act rather than the Marriage Act should be the means by which the GLBT community address their issues of inequality, denial of “rights” and claimed discrimination etc.
The full text is below, or you can access the PDF version (128kB) here.
Syphilis fuelled by iPhone applications such as Grindr have “come back with a vengeance” among Christchurch’s young homosexual community.
Sexual health physicians say the Government needs to take immediate action before the infection spreads into the heterosexual community, where it has the potential to claim the lives of unborn children.
Christchurch fielded a fourfold increase in infectious syphilis from 2011 to last year and so far this year 16 people have been treated for syphilis at the city’s Sexual Health Centre – with six of those infectious.
Canterbury District Health Board Sexual Health Centre physician Dr Heather Young said sexual health was “one of the most neglected hospital specialties” in New Zealand.
“If there is no specific action taken, it [syphilis] has the potential for rapid spread and I fear we will be just sitting here watching a train wreck,” Young said.
Infectious syphilis waned in Christchurch late last year but had “come back with a vengeance” this year.
Because government funding does not cover most sexually transmitted infections (STI), treatment rests with regional health boards.
Syphilis has been on the increase in New Zealand since 2003, with a rise of more than 193 per cent of cases between 2004 and 2006.
Rates peaked in Christchurch last year, Young said.
Not only did the number of cases leap from seven in 2011 to 28 last year, but the average age and way that men were contracting the infection also changed dramatically.
Most men who caught syphilis in 2011 were in their mid-40s and contracted the disease at sex-on-site venues, such as brothels.
However, last year the median age dropped to 26, with some sufferers as young as 19. It was most commonly caught after the use of social media or iPhone applications such as Grindr, Boy Ahoy and NZ Dating, Young said.
“The highest number of people contracting infectious syphilis is men having sex with men and many are using social media sites or smartphones to search for sexual partners.”
The applications enabled men to meet “anywhere safe and convenient” for casual sex.
Young knew some patients who used Grindr and had had more than 50 sexual partners in three months. Others did not even know the name of their last partner.
It wasn’t until a patient showed Young how the application worked that she realised “the ease of sexual partner acquisition”.
“I didn’t truly understand it until I saw it. About 50 people popped up in the immediate vicinity with directions on how to access them,” she said.
“People can access sexual partners with the greatest freedom they have ever had now.”
One of the big concerns was syphilis’ potential to spread into the heterosexual community where it can be transferred from mother to baby during pregnancy.
Congenital syphilis could result in miscarriages, still births and abnormalities in babies, she said.
Many other developed countries are also experiencing a rise of syphilis cases, but have already introduced measures to halt its spread.
“Syphilis should be a top priority [for the Government] because it’s got serious consequences,” Young said.
Dr Ed Coughlan, clinical director of the Sexual Health Centre, said the issue was “very concerning”.
Coughlan urged the community to have regular sexual health checkups.
Doctors around the city had been alerted and an advertising campaign was being published on Facebook and in homosexual magazines, he said.
Coughlan and Christchurch medical officer of health Dr Ramon Pink have also written a joint report to the Ministry of Health, urging the Government to initiate a national response with Pink calling for a “nationally co-ordinated approach”.
“We have texting, Facebook and Twitter and many ways in which we as a society are more connected but it is very important for us to realise that despite our advances in technology, these diseases are still prevalent in our community and they do pose a risk,” he said.
“We cannot take it lightly and we have to act appropriately.”
“Pockets” of the outbreak had flared up in Christchurch, Wellington and Auckland and Pink said if nothing was done to contain the infection it would only be a matter of time before it went national.
The Government has identified sexual health as a “key work area” in its 2010-2013 Statement of Intent.
Ministry of Health chief medical officer Dr Don Mackie said the Government invested about $55 million in sexual and reproduction health services through ministry contracts and district health board provider agreements every year.
Environmental Science and Research also carries out STI surveillance on behalf of the ministry.
Story by Livia Carville, 9 March 2012
Syphilis ‘back with vengeance’
Fairfax NZ News
All you need is love. That is the theme song of pro-same-sex marriage proponents. It is the slogan of Louisa Wall, author of the same-sex marriage bill. If two gay people love each other and want to “marry”, why don’t we allow this? But is love enough?
In answering that question, we need to be aware of two other questions: what is marriage? And why is the state involved? The latter question is crucial, because the core issue is one of affirmation, not rights – rights can be dealt with by specific legislation without amending the Marriage Act and upsetting lots of people.
Apart from conveying rights, marriage provides affirmation that the state/society encourages this relationship as a good thing. A crucial question is whether gay relationships are such a good thing as to be endorsed by society as “marriage”.
We should look at the issue of social endorsement through four lenses: love, commitment, health, and society’s interests.
Let’s begin with love. What is “love”? The word covers a raft of sometimes contrary meanings, from sexual desire centred on “my” self-gratification, to heroic self-giving for another. Both heterosexual and same-sex unions may well pass (or fail) this test. The love issue does not debar same-sex marriages.
However, love alone is not enough. It can be fleeting and transient. If marriage is to be serious and not trivial, it needs longevity, buttressed by commitment and faithfulness.
What of gay commitment and faithfulness? Long-term lesbian relationships on average may well be as committed and faithful as that of an average married heterosexual couple. The problem is the gay men.
Some male gay couples are as committed and faithful as typical married heterosexuals. Survey evidence, however, indicates that these are very much a minority.
Significant data on male homosexual behaviour is available through New Zealand Medical Journal articles and the New Zealand Aids Foundation website. The Aids Foundation and the Aids Epidemiology Group at the University of Otago have conducted biennial surveys, the Auckland Gay Periodic Sex Surveys, for the past decade.
The 2010 results covered the sexual behaviour of 1527 gay men in 2008. On the commitment side, the survey indicates that the most common number of sexual partners for gay men over the previous six months was two to five. Just 38.8 per cent of those surveyed had a partner of more than six months’ standing (i.e. relationships with some level of commitment).
However, 52 per cent of these men had also had sex in that period (six months) with other partners. So despite the rhetoric of love and commitment, most male gay couples are not in a genuinely monogamous relationship. Should the meaning of “marriage” be broadened under such circumstances?
There is also the health issue. Male-to-male coupling typically has far greater health risks (because of high levels of anal sex). Both with casual and with “boyfriend” sex the percentage engaging in anal sex is over 80 per cent. Anal sex is never fully safe. Although condoms reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV/Aids) by around 85-90 per cent, risk remains (because of user misuse or product failure).
Risk is far greater without condom protection. Although 98 per cent of those surveyed knew that anal sex without a condom is very high risk for HIV transmission, 73 per cent did not use a condom at least once in the past six months (the figure for casual sex was 31 per cent).
The result is high levels of sexually transmitted infections amongst gay men. Over 60 per cent of new infectious syphilis cases are gay men. This category also has high rates of gonorrhoea and hepatitis. And 76 per cent of all new HIV diagnoses in 2000-2009 were gay men.
Can we affirm male gay relationships to the level of “marriage”, given the data on faithfulness and health? One can argue change on the basis of “me”, “my rights” and “choice”. But the debate is also about the good of society.
What society needs are stable, faithful, healthy relationships. Stable marriage has gravely weakened in the last generation. There is deep hurt and scarring of many, especially children, as a consequence.
In a direct sense gay “marriage” will not make this worse. Indirectly, however, it will, because it makes marriage, which for many is becoming vague and fuzzy, vaguer and fuzzier still. It is social engineering – with its negative aspects ignored.
We need to have a deep and wide debate, looking at all factors. The same-sex marriage debate is currently far too simplistic. The draft bill is a daft bill.
Laurie Guy is author of Worlds in Collision: The Gay Debate in New Zealand 1960-1986 (Victoria University Press, 2002). He lectures in church history at Auckland University’s school of theology, and also at Carey Baptist College.
Source: Fidelity in marriage an issue for gay men. 31 August 2012
Note: The Objects of the Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. include: “To focus attention on the harmful nature and consequences of sexual promiscuity ……” (s. 2d of Constitution).
In a media release issued on Wednesday 29 August 2012 …
Seventy church leaders, including numerous national heads of major church denominations both Catholic and Protestant, are speaking up in a joint personal statement on the day of the first reading of the Marriage Amendment Bill, which would allow same-sex couples to marry.
“We have made this joint statement”, said Rev. Dr Richard Waugh, “because members of Parliament need to be in no doubt what mainstream Christian views are on this matter.”
Joint church leaders’ statement:
“This issue is not about equality but about the nature of marriage. All human beings are equal in the sight of both God and society, but not all relationships are the same. Marriage has uniquely been about the union of male and female. The State should not presume to re-engineer a basic human institution. The complementary role of male and female is basic to the very character of marriage, along with having and raising children. Same-sex relationships are intrinsically different, so can never be regarded as true marriage.
Parliament needs to take seriously that, for a very significant proportion of the New Zealand public, marriage is more than just a legal agreement or social contract, but has a sacred character to it, and that many people – Christian and otherwise – feel very strongly that the nature of marriage should not be interfered with.
In 2004, the public was assured by the Prime Minister and other MPs that marriage would be respected as the union of a man and a woman, and that Civil Unions were a good and acceptable alternative, offering equivalent legal protections to marriage itself. It is now time for Members of Parliament to recall and honour those assurances.”
- Rev. Dr. Richard Waugh QSM (Wesleyan Methodist, National Superintendent)
- Archbishop John Dew (Catholic)
- Rev. Craig Vernall (Baptist, National Leader)
- Bishop Patrick Dunn (Catholic)
- Rev. Dr Merv Duffy SM (Catholic, Lecturer in the Theology of Marriage
- Rev. Dr Stuart Lange (Presbyterian; Senior Lecturer, Laidlaw College)
- Rev. Mark Whitfield (Lutheran, President of Lutheran Church of New Zealand)
- Rev. Max Scott (Anglican)
- Bishop Denis Browne (Catholic)
- Rev. James Lee (Presbyterian)
- Rev. Dr Sarah Harris (Anglican, New Testament Lecturer, Carey Baptist College)
- Rev. Peter Benzie (Wesleyan Methodist, National Secretary)
- Mr Glyn Carpenter (Director, New Zealand Christian Network)
- Rev. Fakaofo Kaio (Presbyterian, Moderator of Northern Presbytery)
- Rev. Rhys Pearson (Presbyterian)
- Rev. Illiafi Esera (Assemblies of God, Superintendent)
- Pastor Eddie Tupa’i (President, North New Zealand Conference, Seventh-day Adventist Church)
- Rev. Steve Maina (Anglican, New Zealand Church Missionary Society)
- Rev. Ian Guy (Presbyterian)
- Bishop Charles Drennan (Catholic)
- Rev. Kim Francis (Presbyterian)
- Rev. Murray Robertson (Baptist)
- Pastor Lloyd Rankin (National Director, Vineyard Churches Aotearoa New Zealand)
- Rev. Michael Hewat (Anglican)
- Rev. Ian Hyslop (Presbyterian)
- Rev. Nick Kirk (Anglican, Dean of Nelson Cathedral)
- Pastor Ken Harrison (Harvest Christian Church Papakura, AOGNZ)
- Rev. Steve Millward (Presbyterian)
- Bishop Barry Jones (Catholic)
- Rev. Brian Brandon (Presbyterian)
- Rev. Andrew Carley (Anglican, Leader Latimer Fellowship)
- Rev. Ben Dykman (Presbyterian)
- Rev. Mike Hawke (Anglican)
- Pastor Mike Griffiths (Elim, National Leader)
- Bishop Colin Campbell (Catholic)
- Captain Peter Lloyd (Anglican, former Director, Church Army New Zealand)
- Rev. Dr Stuart Vogel (Presbyterian)
- Rev. Dr Myk Habets (Head of Carey Graduate School, Carey Baptist College)
- Rev. Eric Etwell (Anglican, Administrator of AFFIRM)
- Pastor John Steele (National Leader, New Life Churches International)
- Rev. Dr Mark Keown (Presbyterian; Senior Lecturer, Laidlaw College)
- Mr Peter Eccles (Chairman, Auckland Congregational Union churches)
- Rev. Dr Neville Bartle (National Superintendent, Church of the Nazarene)
- Rev. Steve Jourdain (Presbyterian)
- Pastor Peter Mortlock (Senior Pastor City Impact Church)
- Rev. Lindsay Jones (Baptist)
- Pastor Jerry Matthews (President, New Zealand Pacific Union Conference of the Seventh Day Adventist Church)
- Pastor Dr Brian Hughes (Calvary Chapel)
- Rev. Emma Keown (Presbyterian)
- Dr Rod Thompson (Principal, Laidlaw College)
- Dr Laurie Guy (Baptist, Vice Principal, Carey College)
- Rev. Dr Colin Marshall (Presbyterian)
- Pastor Rasik Ranchord (New Life Churches International
- Rev. Andrew Marshall (National Director, Alliance Churches of New Zealand)
- Rev. Dr Martin Macaulay (Presbyterian)
- Pastor Bruce Monk (National Leader, Equippers Church)
- Rev. Charles Hewlett (Principal, Carey Baptist College)
- Pastor Alan Vink (National Director,Willow Creek Association NZ)
- Rev. Hung-Yi Pan (Wesleyan Methodist)
- Rev. Tom Phillips (Presbyterian)
- Rev. Stuart Crossan (Anglican)
- Rev. Peter Dunn (Presbyterian)
- Rev. Ruth Boswell (Wesleyan Methodist)
- Rev. John Gullick (Presbyterian)
- The Very Rev. Rob Yule (Presbyterian, Former Moderator)
- National Leadership Team (Christian Churches New Zealand)
- Rev. Toeaina Leiite Setefano (Presbyterian – PIC)
- Rev. Stephen Woo Taek Nam (Presbyterian)
- Rev. Dr Geoff New (Presbyterian)
For further comment, contact:
Rev. Dr Richard Waugh QSM
Ph 09 2716460
Rev. Dr Stuart Lange
Ph 09 8325775
People “looked the other way” and allowed a convicted paedophile to work among children at six different schools over six years, a ministerial inquiry has found.
The report into the case of Te Rito Henry Miki, led by former ombudsman Mel Smith, was released yesterday.
It found “several factors” besides Miki’s “personal duplicity” had allowed his “relatively easy entry to teaching positions” despite dozens of criminal convictions, including for an indecent assault on a 14-year-old boy.
Education Minister Hekia Parata insisted “system failures rather than people failures” were to blame.
But Mr Smith last night said there were “both system failings and human failings” in the case.
“I identified the systems failings, the human failings and then provided opportunities to rectify those,” he said.
“There were people who knew his background and looked the other way.”
Mr Smith said he had “some concerns” that “some people knew his background but still employed him” but had been unable to confirm those.
His report said there had been a “failure of knowledgeable individuals to advise relevant authorities of Miki’s probable identity and criminal history” and a “willingness of individuals to pretend ignorance as to his real and stolen identities”.
“It just didn’t happen within the police,” he said.
“I found it difficult to understand how he could pull the wool over experienced probation officers’ eyes but, nevertheless, that’s what happened.”
A new 24-hour satellite surveillance programme for high-risk offenders would have prevented Miki’s offending, he said.
While under an extended supervision order for his offending, Miki used a fake CV and birth certificate to gain employment during the six years to January 2012 in six North Island schools.
In 2009, he was arrested on the grounds of a Tauranga school where he had been working, only to go on to work at another school in Auckland.
After accumulating 53 fake identities, Miki was finally arrested in February this year and pleaded guilty in April to seven charges of fraud and four counts of breaching parole conditions.
The report pinpointed Miki’s arrest at Tauranga as one of several missed opportunities to eliminate him from teaching.
The Tauranga school’s principal had “erroneously assumed” his arrest would get to the Teachers Council via the police.
One “diligent” Tauranga constable, a former teacher, had also “located all the information needed to expose Miki, but was deterred” by a lack of the necessary paperwork.
“It was clear that potentially useful information about Miki was lost because at least one concerned person was put off by overly dogmatic bureaucracy,” the report found.
Teachers Council director Peter Lind said the council had been let down.
“Not only had the principal not reported to us, the courts hadn’t reported to us nor had New Zealand Police reported to us,” he said.
However, the people involved should get “the benefit of the doubt” and the fault lay with the systems.
“Yes, they should have done that. But then we also need to say what is it that we need to do to ensure that we don’t get another Miki slipping through the cracks,” Dr Lind said.
Ms Parata said the case provided a “very serious wake-up call” for the whole state sector.
The Government had accepted or partially accepted 36 of the 39 actions recommended by the inquiry. Three were still being considered, including for biometric photographic evidence to be required for all teachers.
Source: Paedophile easily got jobs at six schools. By John Hartevelt and Andrea Vance
The Dominion Post, Wednesday, August 22, 2012, p. A3
Fairfax NZ News
– © Fairfax NZ News