Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Fletch NZ Redefined A Societal Institution For 0.7% Of The Country

Yep, according to today's NZ Herald which has the statistics for how many gay couples are in New Zealand and Australia, we just redefined a societal institution for less than 1% of the country.

Here is the takeaway -

Same-sex couplesAustralia
* 1996 0.3 per cent
* 2001 0.5 per cent
* 2006 0.6 per cent
* 2011 0.7 per cent
New Zealand
* 2006 0.7 per cent.
And here is more of a breakdown in the numbers -

Australian Census figures show that same-sex couples have increased from 0.3 per cent of all couples in 1996 to 0.7 per cent, or 33,700 couples, in the 2011 Census.

New Zealand's 2006 Census found that 0.7 per cent of Kiwi couples were in same-sex relationships.

In both countries, homosexual couples are younger, much better educated and better paid than heterosexual couples, although the pay differences partly reflect more heterosexual women (and some men) taking time out of paid work to bring up children.

In Australia, 1.6 per cent of partnered young people aged 15 to 24, but only 0.1 per cent of partnered seniors aged 65-plus, were in same-sex relationships in 2011. The comparable New Zealand data for 2006 were 1.6 per cent and 0.2 per cent.

The proportions of same-sex couples were highest in Sydney and Canberra (1.1 per cent) in 2011, and in Wellington (1.1 per cent) and Auckland (0.9 per cent) in 2006, with the lowest percentages in rural areas. 
The numbers aren't very different overseas either, with an article in the Telegraph from 2010 citing numbers of one and a half percent gay population in the UK.

And yet society is being pressured to change laws based on these small percentages. Why? Part of it must be due to pressure that these minorities exert by way of activist members who make it into parliament and push their agendas. Part of it is also due to these groups having a large voice in the media and in entertainment. And that was part of their agenda from the start and part of the marketing plan that Kirk and Madsen put forward in their book, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's. In it, Kirk and Madsen reveal their marketing plan using Hollywood and the media to make homosexuality acceptable.

Looks like it has worked. Heaven knows where we'll go from here.

11 comment(s):

bamac said...

Think that you might get a sad smile from this on the web ...


http://www.holypal.com/profiles/blogs/down-at-the-registry-office?xg_source=activity

Mrs Mac

I.M Fletcher said...

Heh, yeh :)

Family First has it up on their website as well.

the conservative said...

Fletcher, if you have time to read ‘The Marketing of Evil’ by David Kupellian it is well worth the read. It gives quite a lot of detail into Kirk and Madsen’s marketing plan—pure evil.

I gave a brief outline on my blog here:

http://www.theconservative.co.nz/?q=node/14

leftrightout said...

So what?

Since when are human rights decided on the basis of numbers? does it matter if 1% or 49% of the population are gay? And, how, by extending the right to marry to gays, are you in any way harmed?

Psycho Milt said...

I'm curious as to what your threshold percentage is for a minority to have its rights recognised in law. Obviously your threshold lies somewhere above 0.7%, but there's a lot of territory between there and 49.9% repeating. Could you pinpoint it for us? And having done that, could you perhaps make a case why a threshold should be accepted, given that law should be based on principle, not numbers? Or is your position that minorities of any proportion are simply unworthy of consideration?

Matthew said...

I think one point is that 99.3% of the population indicates what is considered normative behaviour. Put another way, as a society we accept the behaviour of people's voting actions, and while we may agree or disagree with the result, we accept it at a far lower threshold than 99.3%.

Note I said behaviour, not people. And I disagree with you if you say how can you separate the two. A person is still a person of no less worth if they do not engage in a sexual act. They might feel unhappy, violated and discriminated against, but they wouldn't value their intrinsic existence as a human being as less than anyone else if you asked them.

Ciaron said...

I think the point just wizzzed over your head.

that or you're being willfully ignorant.

Ciaron said...

^^ @ PM. (doh!)

ZenTiger said...

PM: You say "I'm curious as to what your threshold percentage is for a minority to have its rights recognised in law. "

Of course, that presumes this is what the argument is about, and it isn't.

To have rights recognised in law, there are many different ways of achieving this. Some suggested the Civil Union Bill would achieve this.

The chosen method was to redefine a word that to many people has a specific meaning and context. That is what is at dispute here.

We could give rights to hermaphrodites without requiring that all boys and girls henceforth be called "goys".

Another example is the recent story of an atheist gay couple wanting to be married in a church. They aren't religious, they just associate a "legitimate" marriage as one conducted in a church, so were very upset to be denied their "rights". To get their rights they need to get society to redefine the purpose of a church. And on it goes.


Ezekiel Benedict said...

Where to next: Polygamy, Lowering the age of consent for the pedos - They've tried this one before and it got shot down, but society is getting more and more immoral so probably time for Satan and his minions to try again. They own the country, it belongs to them now.

bamac said...

Another step ... special leave for same sex couples marrying that has not been granted to opposite sex couples ... another push from pres. O'Bama ?

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.