Anyone here interested in "Social Change", as epitomised by the New Zealand Parliament's passing into law of the "Civil Union Act", which allows homosexuals (and lesbians, if one makes any distinction) to have their relationships recognised in law, on an almost identical basis to marriage?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=565&ObjectID=9002456

There's been a lot of heated debate about this, but as one astute MP pointed out, he has NO heterosexual constituents interested in forming a Civil Union, and as he asks, 'Why would they?' when they can get married.

So, what we really have is a Homosexual Union Act under a more PC-sounding name.


Following hot on the heels of the passage of the (so-called) "Care of Children Act", this sets the scene for homosexuals to raise children...

Who thinks this is right and good?

Gays deserve some kind of recognition under the law. Many gays are more civic-minded and do more for their rewspective communities than many 'straights'. The problem comes when you attempt to label these unions under the heading of marriage, which many see as being sanctioned by God..

CLICK HERE to view recent news about the controversial referendum and battle in the courts taking place in Louisiana. ::)

[glb]El Pescador[/glb]

Ralph,

I agree that everyone (even a deformed infant in a vegetative state) deserves some kind of recognition under the law...

But obviously, repeat sex offenders - e.g. rapists and paedophiles - receive recognition of a different kind, and this is by and large appropriate.

Which brings me to the question of homosexuality.

What is it, but a condition obviously resulting from some kind of abnormal sexual development and the failure to mature normally, as ("Mother") Nature so obviously intended?

And how wide is the crack between a person whose abnormal (immature) sexual development has produced a paedophile, and someone whose abnormal (immature?) sexual development has lead to them being attracted to the inappropriate gender?

I say inappropriate because, obviously, homosexual acts never result in progeny, which means it's a complete failure in survival terms, and therefore, the attraction, as determined by Nature, IS to the inappropriate gender.

Again, taking (Mother) Nature as the final arbiter of such questions, how often does homosexuality occur naturally, in the wild?  The only example I can think of where homosexuality appears is in domestic livestock - where young bulls, as they develop through puberty, display homosexual activities, though whether this is simply because they are invariably confined away from females and therefore resort to the only available alternative, I can't say.  Alternatively, it may be that they "practise" on one another (and would do so naturally in the wild) simply because they are members of a completely alpha-male dominated species, where a single dominant male "owns" his whole harem, and any hopeful interlopers and juveniles are "seen off" (in a ferocious battle if necessary), and accordingly, the only opportunity to practise the mating act is mutually, in preparation for the time one of them will become the local dominant male.


As for this statement:


Quote:

Many gays are more civic-minded and do more for their rewspective communities than many 'straights'.

Does this sentence actually MEAN ANYTHING?  If so, what?

To clarify, many cows lactate for the benefit of human survival, while many sheep produce wool.

Alternatively, many politicians are more civic-minded and do more for their respective communities than many 'voters' - though I'm sure that doesn't really illuminate the point I'm making....


And I'm afraid I don't understand the last statement at all...


Quote:

The problem comes when you attempt to label these unions under the heading of marriage, which many see as being sanctioned by God..

There's that 'many' word again...  But what is "the problem"?

El Pescador,

Thanks for the link.  

At least the Louisianans are getting a say on the matter.

In NZ, the politicians, in their usual undemocratic manner, and against the large majority of public opinion, forced it upon everyone.

But then, like the Americans, Kiwis DO NOT live in a democracy, but merely under the pretense / beneath the painted façade of one.