Friday, August 31, 2012

Lucia Catholics in NZ need to be Catholic or leave the Church

A major problem with a lot of Catholics in the Church today is that they don't really know what it is that they are supposed to believe, or they know and they think it's quite acceptable to pick and choose for themselves.

Take Josie Pegani, for example, a woman who to me seems quite likeable and smart from what I've heard from her on the radio, who today on NewsTalkZB identified herself as Catholic. During a recent Sunday at Mass, she said she heard the Bishop's Letter to Generation Y on Marriage being read out, and she found herself quite cross by it.

"We are a broad church", she said, thus implying that it's ok for Catholics to think that same-sex marriage is fine. But the "broad church" is Anglican, not Catholic.

Don't you believe the Pope talks directly to God, quipped Sean Plunkett to her. That would have been a perfect teaching moment to say that the Pope, when teaching on faith and morals, speaks for God. And on marriage, the Pope has said many times that marriage is between a man and a woman... whoops!

The other night on NewsTalkZB, Pam Corkery said she was Catholic as well and fully supported same-sex marriage.

Megan Hands, NZ Policy Chair of the Young Nats, also Catholic and clueless. She wrote, on a guest post on Kiwiblog a couple of days ago:

Marriage is about life-long love and commitment. It is the foundation of a family and about bringing two families together. It is not something that should be entered into lightly. It is the pinnacle of recognising your relationship in a way that is intimate yet deliberately public.

Nothing about life-long commitment, love, the joining or two families is exclusively heterosexual. Under the current law, because I am heterosexual I can choose to either recognise my relationship in law under the civil union legislation, or I can choose to get married. Friends in same sex relationships cannot choose to enter into a marriage in the same way that I can simply because they are gay.

But you’re Catholic you say?

The Catholic faith teaches us to love thy neighbour as yourself or do unto others as you would have them do unto you; to be tolerant and accepting; and that God will be the judge of our actions rather than our fellow men on earth.

Pope Benedict XVI, the leader of the Catholic faith at this time, has repeatedly said the marriage can only be between a man and a woman. As an example, he said early early this year:

[P]ride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman. This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself.
The above, of course, led to worldwide condemnation that the Holy Father had said that gay marriage threatened the future of humanity.  Which is the danger with being Catholic and proclaiming the faith - it's counter-cultural.  We are going to get jumped on just for speaking the truth.  Which is probably why so many Catholics today don't live their faith, it's much easier not to.

However, if you want to consider yourself Catholic, it's very important to find out what the Church (through the Pope and the Bishops and the Magisterium) has to say about about your faith.

Pope Benedict XVI said recently of Judas, who betrayed Our Lord:

"The problem is that Judas did not leave, and his fault is that of falsehood, which is the mark of the devil."

Don't say you are Catholic and then support same-sex marriage, even though you know the the Church doesn't support it. Don't betray Our Lord in this way. Either find out what it is the Church says you are supposed to believe and believe it and proclaim it, or do the honest thing and leave if you cannot accept it! Be Catholic or be not, do not pretend, because as the Holy Father says, falsehood is mark of the devil.

Thursday, August 30, 2012

Lucia Teacher suspended by Catholic school over same-sex marriage

A teacher was suspended by a Catholic school over the same-sex marriage bill that passed it's first reading last night. It's the type of event that would have passed unnoticed, had not the issue at hand been so polarising. And add the word Catholic to the mix, and there's a story that the media have taken up with interest, because the teacher suspended was siding with pupils who took the pro-same-sex marriage position.

Students who organised a Facebook page [against the principal's and the Catholic position] were allegedly threatened and Studdart [the suspended teacher], who took up their cause, has been suspended and could lose his job.

Studdart said the principal "took the page down and basically frightened a student into doing it which I think is awful".

Fun and games.

Related link : Teacher suspended in gay marriage row ~ TVNZ

Lucia The redefinition of marriage bill on the boil now

The redefinition of marriage bill passed it's first reading last night, with all but one Labour MPs voting for it (not really a surprise) and more than half of National MPs voting for it as well (very disappointing).

On the positive side, it's good that John Key encouraged his MPs to vote in a way that they thought was right (that was my prayer for him and all MPs yesterday).

Key said he had encouraged his MPs to do what they believed was right. "I'm not looking at who's voting one way or another, I'm not judging them on it."

It's disappointing, however, that John Key's framing this as "marriage equality", a propaganda term that is somewhat meaningless and false. I don't have a direct quote, as I heard him say it on a NewsTalkZB news bulletin.

I'm also not impressed with his talk of a "tougher and nastier" debate. By saying that, he's implying that opponents to the redefinition of marriage are bigots, without actually coming out and saying it directly. That angle has certainly been pushed by publishing select quotes from correspondence to MPs on the bill.

I think we all need to think of the positive aspects of this bill passing it's first reading, namely, now is the time to really articulate to the country what marriage really is and why it's important. With so many children now being born out of wedlock, and a great proportion of those growing up without fathers, and young women thinking that men are only sperm donors and the State will support their families, we need NZ to really value marriage between men and women. Our future depends on it.

Related link: Gay marriage debate to get 'tougher and nastier'

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Lucia Why is an opposition bill gaining such traction? [UPDATE]

You'd almost be forgiven for thinking that Labour still ran the country!

I should be amazed that a bill from the Opposition is getting such traction with the Prime Minister and the Government. I'm not,however, since liberalism of this type is an infectious mind virus and unless a person has a very good grounding in who they are and why they do things, they'll be swayed by the slightest apparently favourable wind, which in this case seems to be following along in the footsteps of David Cameron and Barak Obama. Both of whom have not enacted same-sex marriage in their respective countries, but, they're working on it and we always like jumping the gun and being first, just like with the fantastic emissions trading scheme that we have going that most of the world are slacking in implementing. But nevermind!

The last time a bill from the Opposition was taken up in this way by the Government, thus allowing it to pass with a slim majority was, when? If anyone can think of a time when such a thing happened, please let me know.

That infamous Repeal of S59, aka the anti-smacking bill, under the last Labour Government, must have paved the way for John Key to get himself used to going along with Labour social engineering initiatives. National seems to have no social engineering ideas of its own, beyond crushing cars and sending beneficiaries out to work and riling up school-teachers and potentially the lowering age at which people can buy alcohol; all just mere tinkering around the edges, so they need all the help they can get. And there Labour is, chomping at the bit to get back into power, but in the meantime able to, like the evil undead that cannot be killed, rise up out of the grave and enact their social change policies anyway. It's just bizarre and frankly, very disturbing.

UPDATE: coNZervative has a sort of answer - Political Gay Lobby Tactics Exposed (how to manipulate the public)

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Lucia Euthanasia and Rodney Hide

Rodney Hide is writing about the legalisation of suicide again, where another person can help you die if you don't feel your life is worth living anymore. He uses the story of his friend Martin, who tried to kill himself when he found out he had Huntington's disease.

Martin’s mother had died of Huntington’s disease. Her truly dreadful death took years. In the final stages of Huntington’s the mind loses its ability to control even the simplest movements – even swallowing is difficult and many sufferers die choking.

So, at 19 years old, Martin learned he had a 50 per cent chance of suffering the disease. He decided not to marry. Or have children. The risk was too great. And in his 40th year he got the fateful diagnosis.

We knew what he was planning. But the law forbade us helping or even knowing.

He put his affairs in order. On his own, one night at home, alone, he pinned a note to his new pyjama top: “Huntington’s disease: Please Do Not Resuscitate”. He attempted a massive overdose. But poor Martin. He didn’t get all the pills down.

Reading the story again, I am now struck by the line, "We knew what he was planning."

When I've had friends whom I knew were planning to kill themselves, I did everything I could to help them find the courage and the will to live again. Everything. I don't understand this passive acceptance of another person's desire to die when their life is still worth living. Where were his friends at this point of his life?

His neighbour found him. Martin regained consciousness in Wellington Hospital. The circulation had stopped to his legs and the doctors wanted to amputate.

Martin asked what would happen if they didn’t cut his legs off. “You will die”.

“Good,” replied Martin, “I have Huntington’s disease.”

I have an autistic brother that is in care and will never experience the type of life that Martin was able to lead. He's in his forties now, and will most likely live for another forty years, unable to speak, having to be looked after, and never in real control of his life. He doesn't have Huntington's disease, he has something far worse. Yet, rather than living in fear of what might come, he lives day to day, making the most of his life as best he can. As we all do.

Martin Hames died peacefully in his sleep in the early hours of the next morning. His dad was there. He died happy and he died content.

Martin had every right to take his own life. He also had every right to ask for help. But to give that help is against the law.

Martin feared he would slip into madness or lose control before he killed himself and be sentenced to years of suffering that would be hateful to him.

Maryan Street’s End of Life Choice Bill, now before Parliament, would have enabled Martin to plan his death better. He would not have needed to rush to it.

He and I joked one last time. Then he was serious. He said if I wanted to do something in his memory it would be to change our law so no one else had to go through what he had had to go through. He said, “Boss, change it, change it for all the others.”

I told him I would do my very best.

This column’s not as good as you could write, Martin. But it’s my best. And it’s for you.

Right. Do Martin and Rodney want the law changed so that my brother can be killed as well? And who would decide if his life was unbearable?

I'll say again what I said on Kiwiblog yesterday, suicide is essentially a selfish act. Extending that suicide to requiring others to help with it is another level of selfishness again, where the person wanting to die compounds the evil done by requiring others to participate in it, thus changing them forever.

Rodney Hide doesn't need to get the law changed so that no one else has to go through what Martin went through. He just has to be upfront and say that he failed his friend when he needed him, when his friend was planning to kill himself and Rodney did nothing.

We are all going to die, and the idea of death for many people is terrifying. But creating a society where a person can be terminated on request will change all of us, and not for the better.

Related links : Rodney on Euthanasia – his full column

Monday, August 27, 2012

Lucia Fight back in Scotland over same-sex marriage

There's a bit of a fight going on in Scotland right now between the Catholic Church and the Scottish Government over same-sex marriage. The Church's position on marriage has been called an "anti-gay agenda" and there's the fear that the Church "will take the fight into schools." The Church is not rolling over in Scotland, and I think that is what is particularly worrying for the reality redefiners - that the Catholic Church is fighting back.

The Scottish government has been urged to stand firm over its plans to legalise same-sex marriage and not be derailed by an "anti-gay agenda", as the Catholic church in Scotland launched a campaign to maintain "the universally accepted definition of marriage" as a union between a man and a woman.

In a letter read out in all 500 of the church's parishes, Scotland's Catholic bishops expressed their "deep disappointment" that Alex Salmond's administration has vowed to pass legislation that could see the first gay marriage ceremonies by 2015. The letter called on worshippers to pray for their political leaders so that they may preserve the traditional nature of marriage "for the good of Scotland and of our society".

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of the country's Catholic church, who last weekend broke off direct talks with the Scottish government on gay marriage, said: "The church's teaching on marriage is unequivocal, it is uniquely the union of a man and a woman and it is wrong that governments, politicians or parliaments should seek to alter or destroy that reality." He added: "While we pray that our elected leaders will sustain rather than subvert marriage, we promise to continue to do everything we can to convince them that redefining marriage would be wrong for society."

Gay rights activists condemned the move. "It is increasingly clear that the church has an anti-gay agenda that it wants to impose on the rest of society," said Tom French, policy co-ordinator of the Equality Network. "We urge the Scottish government to stand firm on plans to introduce equal marriage and not give in to demands that would discriminate against LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] people."

Particularly worrying, said French, was any suggestion that the Catholic church would take the fight into schools. According to the bishops' letter, a National Commission for Marriage and the Family will be launched, which would be especially important for young people and children. O'Brien said the body would "develop an online presence and produce materials and organise events" to promote the cause.

French said the Equality Network would be "deeply concerned" by any attempt to take these activities into schools. "School should be a welcoming environment for all young people, regardless of their sexual orientation or their family situation," he said.

In the face of intense pressure from not only the Catholic church but also Muslim organisations and evangelical and presbyterian churches, the Scottish government has continued with its plan to legalise gay marriage. A draft bill is to be published later this year.

Related link: Same-sex marriage: Scotland urged to resist Catholic church campaign ~ The Guardian

Essential Reading on Marriage: What is Marriage

Lucia Falsity is the mark of the devil

Castel Gandolfo (AsiaNews) - "Jesus knew that among the 12 Apostles one did not believe, Judas," said Benedict XVI. In speaking about Judas, his unbelief, his desire to betray, his devilish nature, the pontiff used a tone not usually associated with homiletics. Compared this to Saint Peter who, in response to Jesus' question "Do you also want to leave?", answered, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God" (John, 6:67-69)."


"Judas could have left as many disciples did," the pontiff explained. "Indeed, he should have left had he been honest. Instead, he stayed with Jesus, not out faith, nor out of love, but with the secret desire of taking revenge against the Master. Why? Because Judas felt betrayed by Jesus, and decided in turn to betray him. Judas was a Zealot; he wanted a winning Messiah, one who would lead a revolt against the Romans. However, Jesus did not live up these expectations. The problem is that Judas did not leave, and his fault is that of falsehood, which is the mark of the devil. For this reason, Jesus told the Twelve: "Yet is not one of you a devil?" (John, 6:70).
The Holy Father's words are very timely as we approach the vote on same-sex marriage here in New Zealand.  The slogan of "marriage equality" is a big, blatant lie.  Those that cannot marry should not try to enter an institution that they are not designed for.  Find someone of the opposite sex to marry (because that is what marriage is) or leave marriage alone.  Don't do a Judas - look what he did to himself!

Related link: Pope: Even among the 12 Apostles there was one who did not believe, Judas ~

Lucia Restless Heart - the movie

A movie on St Augustine - looks awesome!

I checked Flicks to see if it's going to be released here in NZ, but no such luck.  If you want to see this movie, you'll have to buy it online.

Sunday, August 26, 2012

Lucia There is no conservative case for same-sex marriage

Today David Farrar has written a post entitled The conservative case for same-sex marriage, an oxymoron if I ever heard one. I've heard these so called conservative arguments a number of times, and basically they boil down to, if marriage is so great for society, then why not expand it?

Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one’s own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.

If only we human beings had the power to redefine reality that Theodore Olsen, whom David Farrar quotes, assumes we have! This assumption that by expanding the definition of marriage, it somehow magically confers its benefits upon those who were naturally excluded is silly - reality doesn't work that way!

It's not that conservatives have decided upon a definition of marriage, and by deciding that definition, think it somehow creates the ultimate relationship! We know we don't have that sort of power - why don't liberals get that? For instance, we know it is not possible to confer the benefits of being a twenty year old, physically fit young man upon an eighty year old woman by decree. I cannot state that it is so, and it be so. Neither can Parliament. Sure, we can pretend that an eighty year old woman is capable of everything that a twenty year old man is, but that only changes how we think about the eighty year old woman, not what the woman is in reality. So it is with same-sex couples. We can say that they are married, and pretend that it is so, but in reality they will not be, and because of that reality, the benefits of marriage will not be conferred to them. That's just the way it is.

Marriage works best when defined as a lifelong monogamous relationship between a man and a woman that is open to raising children, ie the Conjugal Definition. That definition is being the best definition of marriage. Children do best when raised in this sort of society where most people live by this ideal of marriage. So, expanding the definition will do nothing to confer that benefit upon those who are naturally excluded. It's silly to even argue that it will, and it's ridiculous to suggest that conservatives should support such a pretense!

David then quotes Olsen on history and interracial marriages, implying such marriages were illegal forever and thus implicitly throwing a spanner in the works of traditionalists who aren't awake.

It seems inconceivable today that only 40 years ago there were places in this country where a black woman could not legally marry a white man. And it was only 50 years ago that 17 states mandated segregated public education—until the Supreme Court unanimously struck down that practice in Brown v. Board of Education. Most Americans are proud of these decisions and the fact that the discriminatory state laws that spawned them have been discredited. I am convinced that Americans will be equally proud when we no longer discriminate against gays and lesbians and welcome them into our society.

As if history began 40 years ago and only in the US! Interracial marriages have been recognised for millenia. The United States antimiscegenation laws are the historical anomaly, and they were about who was allowed to marry, not what marriage was essentially about. More silly arguments.

The rest of David's post just builds on all of this, so I'm not going to go into it in detail. I just want to finish with the statement that there is no conservative case for same-sex marriage, because conservatives don't seek to pretend that we can change reality like liberals do. Even if they try to give us potentially compelling reasons to pretend, we still can't. Sorry, we are just not wired that way.

Conservatives deal with reality, not make-believe.

Saturday, August 25, 2012

Andrei What marriage is

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Lucia Truly awful - two pederasts in NZ schools - how many more?

I'm not going to condemn this man, that's not my place, as his actions have already condemned him. It will be interesting to see if anyone's head rolls over this - people who might have known, and done nothing.

Many Kaitaia parents will be hurting over the offending of a trusted teacher who sexually assaulted a dozen boys, a resident says.

James Parker, 37, appeared in Kaitaia District Court this morning where he pleaded guilty to 49 charges involving indecent assault and sexual connection with children aged 12 - 16, and committing indecent acts and sexual assault on boys under 12.

Parker was deputy principal at Pamapuria School in Kaitaia at the time of the offending, which happened from November 2005 to as recently as last month.

I wonder how many boys over the age of 16 there were, that they couldn't get him on?

And then there's another one:

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."

Surely those people who looked the other way should be guilty of negligence or exposed children to harm? His indecent assault on a 14 year old boy doesn't make him a paedophile, either - he's a pederast.

I also heard on National Radio this morning (Maori news or something) that the schools were so short of Maori teachers that that was the reason he was hired. Hmmm, Maori language and culture beats protecting children from pederasts??

You know what I'm thinking - if these teachers were in the Catholic Church, then the pitchforks would be out.  So, while people are upset, they're not calling for schools in NZ to be closed and those who knew about these teachers to be prosecuted.

Maybe in twenty years all these people that enabled these two to gain access to children will be called to account, but somehow, I don't think so.

Related links : Disgust over teacher's sexual offending
Paedophile easily got jobs among children

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Fletch Hawaii Upholds Traditional Marriage

Hawaii upholds marriage as being between one man and one woman –

In a day when elected officials and activist judges in many states across America are maneuvering to undermine the traditional and legal meaning of marriage, the clear thinking of a federal court in Hawaii is as refreshing as an island breeze.

On August 8, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii upheld that state’s definition of marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman – supporting the will of the people over that of a small group of activists and a recalcitrant governor.

Yeh, right on. At least one state in America truly gets it.

“Throughout history and societies, marriage has been connected with procreation and childrearing,” the court said in its order. “It follows that it is not beyond rational speculation to conclude that fundamentally altering the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions might result in undermining the societal understanding of the link between marriage, procreation, and family structure.

“In this situation,” the court continued, “to suddenly constitutionalize the issue of same-sex marriage ‘would short-circuit’ the legislative actions that have been taking place in Hawaii…. Accordingly, because Hawaii’s marriage laws are rationally related to legitimate government interests, they do not violate the federal Constitution.”

“This ruling affirms that protecting and strengthening marriage as the union of one man and one woman is legitimate, reasonable, and good for society,” says Legal Counsel Dale Schowengerdt. “The people of Hawaii adopted a constitutional amendment to uphold marriage, and the court rightly concluded that the democratic process shouldn’t be short-circuited by judicial decree.”

Lucia We think it's time that Catholics stop being Catholic

A letter from the NZ Bishops to the young people in this country has finally made it to the Dominion Post this morning. But, rather than really highlighting the contents of the letter, the paper chose to add some controversy by getting a quote by a group of non-Catholics who are basically calling upon Catholics to stop being so Catholic!! What on earth is our problem, believing that morality is set in stone and unable to change with the times??

A letter to young people from Roman Catholic bishops condemning gay marriage has been rejected by other Christian leaders.

The letter to "Kiwis of Generation Y" from all six of New Zealand's Catholic bishops advises against allowing same-sex couples to marry in the eyes of the law for the sake of "society as a whole".

"This is no small matter, nor quibbling about words; this is an attempt to re-engineer the status and structure of family life in New Zealand," they wrote.

Fifty clergy and laity from Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist and Quaker denominations lashed out at the bishops and called on them to reconsider their position on the Marriage Amendment Bill.

"We think it's time the Church recognises and encourages those in same-gender relationships who wish to pledge their love and fidelity to each other in the rite of marriage," the group wrote back to the bishops.

"To suggest, as you do, that marriage based on biblical precepts is frozen in stone and cannot develop or change is to ignore reality."


Related link : Bishops damn gay marriage in letter ~ Dominion Post

Lucia What the devil sounds like when he's trying to convince you to do something

Whale Oil this morning, on Judith Collins deciding to vote to redefine marriage:

There you go. No big deal. Not that hard is it?

And Cactus Kate last month, on what it will cost John Banks to support the redefinition of marriage:

One Press release and questions from media, one day of his life. That's all.
Both the comments above highlight exactly how Satan works to tempt people to do what they don't want to do.  It's no big deal, it's just one day of your life, not that hard.  And then what you've done what he wants you to do, you can't take it back, you can only ask for forgiveness and try and make up for it - OR - you deny your own own conscience and pretend it was ok to do.  If you do the latter, he's got you good, but unfortunately, denied consciences cause all sorts of other problems.

Here's the Venerable Fulton Sheen on the devil and how he works and how different Our Lord is before we do something wrong.

Related link: Crusher Voting For Marriage Equality ~ Whale Oil Beef Hooked
John Banks Will Vote For Gay Marriage Here Is Why ~ Cactus Kate

Monday, August 20, 2012

Fletch '50 Shades' About Paedophilia?

According to a comment made by a female reader at another blog who works with troubled and abused children, the 50 Shades Of Grey book that is so popular at the moment may actually be a thinly veiled story of paedophilia where the older man is a Jerry Sandusky type of abuser.

Although in the book, the woman's age is given as 21, the reader and her friend contend that this is a thin cover and the signs point to a much younger aged protagonist.

Now I know after saying that, many female fans of 50 Shades, many of them mothers, will naturally put up a defense against that kind of description.  These women, being mothers, are naturally wired to protect kids.  People like Jerry Sandusky are viewed with hatred, revulsion, and disgust.  Rightfully so.  What mother would want to condone anything having to do with the sexual abuse of children?  Of innocents?


My professional experience centers around nearly 20 years with Child Protective Services.  Over that time, I’ve seen situations that do, literally, keep me up at night.  The amount of abuse that is going on in our society, that sexualization of our kids…well basically, what you hear about, what is reported in the news, that is only a small sample of just how large of a problem and the disgusting acts that are going on every day.  Kids are being raped.  Kids are being abused.  Every single day.  Over and over and over again.

Saturday, August 18, 2012

ZenTiger The Hockey Stick and Climate Change

As some-one said in the comments: An excellent summary of how climate science is done!

It seems Mann's Hockey stick remains the Gold Standard of climate science, according to my son's school teacher.

Here is a clear summary of some of the controversy around the Hockey Stick saga that is worth linking to:

Caspar and the Jesus Paper

and for a more detailed account, perhaps read the book: The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science

And old old post about the IPCC Report as the Gold Standard: IPCC - Lie Pollution

Friday, August 17, 2012

Lucia My retreat and same-sex marriage preparation for tonight

I went on a Catholic retreat over the weekend, and since then I've been reorienting my life. I do spend too much time on the computer, so have been staying away and doing other things instead. Semi-normal posting will resume as soon I integrate the changes I've made.

In the meantime, I have to prepare for a talk I'm giving on the proposed changes to marriage in New Zealand. I've noticed that Matt and Madeleine Flannagan (of MandM) wrote a very good post on the subject on WhaleOil's blog yesterday. If you want to understand the serious deficit in logic being employed by the marriage equality crowd, read Guest post: critiqueing the case for same-sex marriage.

The best article that I've read so far that addresses all the current issues and major arguments, is What is Marriage? It specifically spells out the difference in understand of marriage between those of us who want to adhere to a more traditional view (the Conjugal View below), with those who wish to revise it (the Revisionist View).
Conjugal View: Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together. The spouses seal (consummate) and renew their union by conjugal acts – acts that constitute the behavioral part of the process of reproduction, thus uniting them as a reproductive unit. Marriage is valuable in itself, but its inherent orientation to the bearing and rearing of children contributes to its distinctive structure, including norms of monogamy and fidelity. This link to the welfare of children also helps explain why marriage is important to the common good and why the state should recognize and regulate it.

Revisionist View: Marriage is the union of two people (whether of the same sex or of opposite sexes) who commit to romantically loving and caring for each other and to sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life. It is essentially a union of hearts and minds, enhanced by whatever forms of sexual intimacy both partners find agreeable. The state should recognize and regulate marriage because it has an interest in stable romantic partnerships and in the concrete needs of spouses and any children they may choose to rear.

Below is a 30 minute documentary on how same-sex marriage will affect you and your children. Be prepared to be afraid! No, not really, I just said that for effect. We need to be raising our children and grandchildren (when we have them) to be martyrs. No need to be afraid of this. Yeah, I've been on a retreat, so I'm philosophical on this.

Monday, August 13, 2012

Lucia You don't need the Biblical definition of marriage to know what marriage is

I'm quoting an article that is a couple of years old, back from the debates in California entrenching the traditional view of marriage in law. The proposal put forward was that: Proposition 8, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." In the second paragraph below, the writer talks about how religion did not define marriage, that it's definition is easily discerned from "human nature and it's fulfillment".

Kmiec and the editors of the Times join a long series of activists who insist on framing the same-sex marriage debate as a clash between civil liberties and religion. But that’s not what it is. This debate is about the substantive differences between same-sex marriage and traditional marriage, whatever they are called. The question is whether the substance of the traditional institution should be endorsed both by voluntary associations (including houses of worship) and by the state as the ideal union of adults and the ideal environment for childbearing and childrearing.

Much more than share a television remote, spouses play a crucial public role in any healthy society. Much more than the private union of consenting adults, marriage is vitally important for the well-being of our nation’s children. That’s why Kmiec’s characterization of marriage is unsound. While he is right to note that the state did not create marriage, he is wrong to claim that religion did. Marriage exists as a natural, pre-political, and pre-religious institution based upon human nature and its fulfillment. States and religions rightly recognize and support marriage, but it precedes both. Kmiec, who writes as a Catholic, fails to notice that his argument contradicts the Catholic faith, which teaches that you don’t need the Book of Genesis — or any divine revelation — to know that man and woman are sexually differentiated and that marriage is founded on the bodily union of sexually complementary spouses. Though Catholics believe that Jesus elevated this natural relationship to participate sacramentally in the divine Trinitarian life, this elevation does nothing to eliminate or obscure marriage’s status as a natural human institution. That is why the Catholic church has always regarded the marriages of nonbelievers as true and valid.

Related link: Preserving Marriage in Substance, Not Just Name ~ National Review Online

Friday, August 10, 2012

Lucia Take away state regulation of marriage?

I've noticed a growing number of people (many of them Christian) who think the solution to the state redefining marriage is for the state to remove itself from the regulation of marriage completely. I reject this view completely.

Marriage is a social institution, and removing the state from the regulation of marriage would speed up the social unraveling that we are now currently experiencing. The state has an absolute interest in marriage because without marriage, there is no state. We may as well just close down Parliament completely and go back to tribal living, where absolute authority is vested in leaders of small groups.

Can I produce a coherent argument as to why marriage not regulated by the state would be so destructive to the state? Not yet, but I will.

Even if NZ makes a terrible mistake in redefining marriage, we need to stick with the State as a regulator of marriage, because this situation will not last long. At some point, people will wonder what the point of regulating short-term romantic attachments is. They will notice that children brought up by non mother/father couples will have serious problems, just as we are noticing now that children brought up by single parents, depending on their background, have serious problems. And then there will be a push to create an ideal marriage status, defined as optimal for children, and we'll have traditional marriage back again. How long this process will take, I don't know, but it with either happen or the state will implode.

In the meantime, it's worth really understanding what marriage is and how to counter the marriage revisionist arguments.

Related link: Opposing same-sex marriage: a civil decision, not a religious one ~ LifeSiteNews

Thursday, August 9, 2012

Lucia John Key inconsistent

John Key speaking at the Big Gay Out

John Key's position on redefining marriage is inconsistent.

Is he acting as Prime Minister, or as an elected member with his own conscience?

If, as Prime Minister, he thinks that marriage should be completely redefined, then why doesn't the Government put forward a bill to that effect?

John Key is obviously not acting as an electorate MP, as he is saying that the views of his Helensville electorate most likely not change how he's going to vote. These voters are basically going to be unrepresented when it comes to this major change to a fundamental institution of society, which is something they should think about future elections when voting.

John Key seems to want to act as an elected member with his own conscience, but wanting his Helensville electorate constituents to see him as acting as Prime Minister, therefore not being beholden to their views. However, he's not acting as Prime Minister, because his party's policy has never been to redefine marriage. The definition of marriage bill is an opposition bill that was drawn from a hat!

It seems John Key is hoping that different people will interpret his position on this bill in different ways, thinking that no one is going to notice that his position is not consistent.

If he's Prime Minister, he shouldn't support an opposition bill that goes against what most people who voted for National expected. If he's not Prime Minister however, for the purposes of this bill, he should stop trying to influence others based on his position! Make it clear that he is voting according to his own conscience, and every other elected National MP will do the same.

I wish I could find a quote with John Key saying he's acting as Prime Minister in this case and not an electorate MP. I've heard him say it on the radio, but I'll be darned if I can find it again!

Related link: Poll won't sway Key's vote for gay marriage

Fletch Israel Saves Life Of Hamas Leader Brother-In-Law

Israel showing the respect it has for human life: even the life of it's enemies -
The difference between Israel and the Palestinians has never been so starkly illustrated; four months ago the brother-in-law of Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh had a serious cardiac problem which could not be solved in Gaza. So what did Israel do? It sent a Magen Adom ambulance to the Erez crossing, picked the man up, and rushed him all the way to a Petah Tikvah hospital where he stayed for a week until his condition was stable again.

Haniyeh viciously attacks Israel every chance he gets; after the terror attack in Sinai on August 5 that killed 16 Egyptians, he joined with the Muslim Brotherhood and actually accused Israel of planning the attack, saying, "The attack's method confirms some sort of Israeli involvement aiming to achieve political and security goals, cause tension on the border with Egypt and destroy joint efforts to end the Gaza blockade.”

Just today an Egyptian airstrike killed 20 terrorists in response to the attack. At a rally to for the 23rd anniversary of Hamas, Haniyeh bellowed he would never recognize Israel: There is no future for the occupation in Palestine. Palestine is from the sea to the river, from Rosh HaNikra to Rafah. The siege will not change our belief, wars don't cause people give up resistance and resistance leaders. We will not recognize, We will not recognize, We will not recognize Israel!

In 2010, 180,000 Palestinians were treated in Israeli hospitals. It’s the nature of the Jewish state to treasure human life; Jewish history is replete with examples of Jewish doctors who have bequeathed a legacy of life-saving ideas that eased the misery of those who suffer. (See Salk, Jonas; Sabin, Albert; Ehrlich, Paul; among hundreds of others).

In contrast to the hate that spews out of Hamas, many Palestinians, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, and most of the Arab world, Israel is a beacon of light waiting for the hate and darkness around it to vanish. And despite its attempts to reach out, there are always those who call for its destruction.
True class.

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Lucia Same-sex marriage causing Labour breakup

There's most likely a very good reason why previous Prime Minister, Helen Clark, didn't go all the way to Same-sex Marriage and just stopped with Civil Unions. Looks like Louisa Wall and Co. will find out what this reason was the hard way.

The gay marriage bill has started to tear the Labour Party to pieces.

Labour's Mangere MP Sua William Sio has basically called for a divorce from the bill, saying it should be withdrawn - because it could cost the party the next election.

Yes, that's right - Sio says the bill could cost Labour an election.

And you can't really fault Sua's logic: he says it will wipe out the Pacific vote in South Auckland - that's Labour's heartland, that's where it wins elections.

Labour's not likely to have won the next election anyway. But this won't help.

It conjures up all the images of a Labour Party obsessed by so-called "social engineering" like anti-smacking rather than issues like jobs and wages.

No wonder John Key is voting for it - it's causing Labour many more problems than it's causing National.

It also conjures up a reminder of a weak, lily livered National, unable to stop the same type of social engineering such as anti-smacking. NZ votes out the social engineering party, and they still pop up with social engineering bills that the new Prime Minister even supports! And we voted for him, why?

Related links: Opinion: Labour breaking up over same-sex marriage
Dump gay marriage bill: Labour MP ~ Stuff
'Gaggle of gays' MP courted by gay lobbyists ~ Stuff

Lucia Nothing to see here

Move along...


Lucia Google account holders - turn on two-step verification!

What a terrifying story! Last week, this poor man had all the data on his iPhone, iPad and MacBook deleted, all because someone managed to get into his Google account!

In the space of one hour, my entire digital life was destroyed. First my Google account was taken over, then deleted. Next my Twitter account was compromised, and used as a platform to broadcast racist and homophobic messages. And worst of all, my AppleID account was broken into, and my hackers used it to remotely erase all of the data on my iPhone, iPad, and MacBook.

In many ways, this was all my fault. My accounts were daisy-chained together. Getting into Amazon let my hackers get into my Apple ID account, which helped them get into Gmail, which gave them access to Twitter. Had I used two-factor authentication for my Google account, it’s possible that none of this would have happened, because their ultimate goal was always to take over my Twitter account and wreak havoc. Lulz.

I've just set up two-step verification on my Google account. I didn't realise how important it was to do so until now.

Related link: How Apple and Amazon Security Flaws Led to My Epic Hacking

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Lucia Growing up with two mothers made him "strange"

Robert Lopez grew up in a lesbian household, and rather than preparing him for life as an adult, he found that he just didn't fit in with anyone, even those who identify as gay.  He thinks it's because he didn't learn all the male/female social cues that everyone, even those of homosexual orientation, take for granted.  So, while he was a straight-A student, everyone found him bizarre.

Quite simply, growing up with gay parents was very difficult, and not because of prejudice from neighbors. People in our community didn’t really know what was going on in the house. To most outside observers, I was a well-raised, high-achieving child, finishing high school with straight A’s.

Inside, however, I was confused. When your home life is so drastically different from everyone around you, in a fundamental way striking at basic physical relations, you grow up weird. I have no mental health disorders or biological conditions. I just grew up in a house so unusual that I was destined to exist as a social outcast.

My peers learned all the unwritten rules of decorum and body language in their homes; they understood what was appropriate to say in certain settings and what wasn’t; they learned both traditionally masculine and traditionally feminine social mechanisms.

Even if my peers’ parents were divorced, and many of them were, they still grew up seeing male and female social models. They learned, typically, how to be bold and unflinching from male figures and how to write thank-you cards and be sensitive from female figures. These are stereotypes, of course, but stereotypes come in handy when you inevitably leave the safety of your lesbian mom’s trailer and have to work and survive in a world where everybody thinks in stereotypical terms, even gays.

I had no male figure at all to follow, and my mother and her partner were both unlike traditional fathers or traditional mothers. As a result, I had very few recognizable social cues to offer potential male or female friends, since I was neither confident nor sensitive to others. Thus I befriended people rarely and alienated others easily. Gay people who grew up in straight parents’ households may have struggled with their sexual orientation; but when it came to the vast social universe of adaptations not dealing with sexuality—how to act, how to speak, how to behave—they had the advantage of learning at home. Many gays don’t realize what a blessing it was to be reared in a traditional home.

These are the stories that need to be told, what it's like for children growing up in same-sex households.  You won't get the full story when the children are young, because they are unable to speak freely.  It's only when they've grown up will we find out that same-sex parenting is not all it's cracked up to be.

Related link: Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children’s View ~ The Witherspoon Institute

Lucia Getting killed in the hospital

On Being Frank, Kereopa points out that while we are all distracted with same-sex marriage, a hidden debate over the ability of the State to kill people if they want to die (he doesn't quite put in like that, but that's what it amounts to) is "bubbling away without much attention."

I agree with Kereopa when he says that euthanasia is abhorrent. It's the continuation of the ever present slide into the pits of hell that so few in New Zealand seem to be fighting, and even worse are shrouding the arguments in layers of supposed compassion.

There is nothing compassionate about making hospitals places where you wonder if you enter, if a doctor or your family will decide for you that your life is not worth continuing and there actively hasten your death.

Unfortunately, death hastening is already occurring in some (or is it all?) New Zealand hospitals through dehydration. A friend of mine just this year had her 79 year old father in hospital, and because he was unlikely to die quickly by himself and suffered from demetia, and heaven forbid might even recover!, the hospital through a sister that was a doctor, recommended that they withdraw all fluids so that he save everyone the trouble! They got the family to agree and so it was done, and the next morning he died.

I know I'm going to get the naysayers coming onto the comments and say that it was better that this man die sooner rather than suffering for months, but seriously, how do you know? The man was never consulted. What if he was quite happy being alive?

Do we want to be like the Netherlands where old people are afraid to go to hospital, because there is a high chance someone will decide their life is not worthy and therefore they won't come out alive?

That's what legalising Euthanasia will do, make the abuses more prevalent and less likely to be prosecuted. If old people are already being dehydrated to death in NZ hospitals now, how much worse will it become?

Related link: The Hidden Debate ~ Being Frank

Monday, August 6, 2012

Lucia Countering Rodney Hide on same-sex "marriage" [UPDATE]

Yesterday, an opinion piece by Rodney Hide on same-sex marriage was published in the Herald on Sunday.  Mr Hide's article presumes that Parliament can create our reality and that in this recreated reality where marriage, a major social institution, is redefined by the whim of a few Parliamentarians will have with no deleterious effects to our way of life.  Most of his article is a history lesson on marriage and homosexuality in New Zealand, but curiously enough, the breakdown of the family, and the increasingly high cost of maintaining fatherless children through all these changes have not been included in Hide's piece - as if there is no connection.

Hide starts with very bold statements on who has the authority to determine marriage.
It's Parliament that decides who we can and can't marry. It's not decided by a committee of clergy. Or handed down by Holy Writ.
So, marriage is whatever Parliament says it is? 

Yet, marriage pre-dates the State, and thus comes to the State already defined.  While Parliament may "decide" what the State will and won't recognise as "marriage", and enforce penalties against those who break it's rules, Parliament can't change the nature of we call marriage.  For example, Parliament could say that all cats are dogs, and make everyone call their pet cat a dog and even register it, but we'd all know by looking at each animal just what they really are, and sooner or later reality would reassert itself.  So it is, and will be with marriage.

The regulation of marriage in New Zealand began with an ordinance in 1842 and the first Marriage Act was passed on the establishment of Parliament in 1854.
Married couples came to New Zealand before the first ordinance.  All the ordinance did was recognise what everyone already knew as marriage.
Our present Marriage Act dates from 1955. It sets out the rules for who can and can't marry. For example, the act prohibits a man marrying his former wife's grandmother or his daughter's son's wife. It's fortunate that Parliament thought of such possibilities and prohibited them.

Our present Marriage Act has already been gutted, so it's not the original 1955 act.  At some point, the consummation requirement to make a marriage valid was removed from the law, thus further reducing the State's understanding of what marriage actually is.  From a Catholic perspective, every uncontracepted marital act (and we all know what marital act means!) is a physical restatement of the marriage vows.  Every contracepted sexual act is a negation of the vows.

The Marriage Act 1955 doesn't say I can't marry a man or that a woman can't marry a woman.
It doesn't say you can't marry your dog either, I guess because the writers of the legislation back in 1955 did not think they were writing for morons.  Some things just should not need to be spelled out to those with a common morality and tradition.

But the courts have ruled that it wasn't Parliament's intent to enable same-sex marriage and that it's up to Parliament, not the courts, to declare whether same-sex marriages are lawful, not the courts. It's a fair call.
Ok, so some people have taken their desire to be "married" a person of the same sex to the courts and they said they didn't have the authority!
Back when the Marriage Act was enacted, homosexual activity was a crime carrying a maximum of life imprisonment. It's a safe bet that parliamentarians then weren't envisaging they were passing a law that would enable two men to apply for a marriage licence.
No kidding!
But even then the law had softened towards homosexuality.

Parliamentarians in the early days were hard core and set the penalty for homosexual activity as death. The death penalty for buggery was removed in 1867.

The 1893 New Zealand Criminal Code was still discouraging: "Everyone is liable to imprisonment with hard labour for life, and, according to his age, to be flogged or whipped, once, twice or thrice, who commits buggery either with a human being or with any other living creature".

The flogging for buggery was removed in 1941 and hard labour removed in 1954.

The 1961 Crimes Act reduced the maximum sentence for sodomy between consenting adult males to seven years' prison.

The big change was in 1986, when Parliament voted by a narrow margin to decriminalise homosexual activity. Consensual sex between men was no longer a crime.
Nearly thirty years ago homosexuality (actually, buggery) was decriminalised.  I wonder if those voting for decriminalization ever thought that by doing so, that men would be demanding to get married to each other in NZ in 2012?  If anyone had even brought that up as a possibility at the time, they would have been laughed at the way the media commentators are laughing at anyone that brings up polygamy coming next, now.  But there is a saying that you should never take down a fence if you don't know what it is for.  In 1986, Parliament took down a rather large fence with a sense of moral superiority over those that had put it up in years gone past, without really understanding why it was there in the first place, and those that knew, didn't care.
Consensual sex between women was never illegal in New Zealand. Early legislators thought such a thing impossible and didn't like to think about it and so never criminalised it.
Probably because women doing stuff to each other is not as invasive as buggery.

Once homosexual acts were decriminalised in 1986 the inability of homosexuals to marry was an obvious anomaly and inequality. Homosexuals can have consensual sex; they just can't get married to do so.
Men who experience same-sex attraction, and act on those attractions have always been able to marry, as long as they follow the same rules of marriage as everyone else.   And women, who as Hide says, were never criminalised for sexual activity between themselves weren't clamouring to be able to marry each other.  They were more likely to be condemning marriage as an outdated artifact of a repressive, patriarchal society that they would prefer to see destroyed rather than expanded to those of the same sex.
In 2005 Parliament fudged the issue by allowing civil unions.

A civil union is everything a marriage is - it just has a different name. The crucial difference is that same-sex couples can have a civil union.

The thinking at the time was that civil unions legislation might succeed in Parliament but allowing homosexuals to marry would not.

The civil union law passed by 65 votes to 55.

Since then, 2000 New Zealand couples have tied the knot through civil union. One in five were heterosexual couples; nearly half were female plus female; a third were male plus male; 83 civil unions have been dissolved.

Importantly, the sky has not fallen. Certainly civil unions haven't proved "destructive of the very foundations of society as we know it" as the critics feared. And now MP Louisa Wall's Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill has been drawn from the ballot.
The sky has not fallen, true.  But here we are, seven years after the passing of the Civil Unions Act debating changing  marriage so that it can be between two people of the same sex, something that wasn't supposed to happen because civil union was supposed to be enough.  Except, same-sex marriage will not be enough and men who want to be able to marry more than one woman at a time will be crying discrimination.
The way the ballot works is that Parliament sets aside limited time to consider legislation put up by MPs. Ordinarily it's only government ministers who can introduce legislation. Which members' bills get considered is determined by ballot.

That's how Louisa Wall's bill has arrived before Parliament. It was her call, and the luck of the draw.

Her bill is a simple one: it amends the Marriage Act to declare that "marriage means the union of two people, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity".
Louisa Wall's bill may be simple, but the effects won't be.  Her bill will change marriage from being a fundamental societal institution, which is most likely to give the children born to parents who have married the best chance of a good start in life, to something more airy, fairy, so that it can cater to adults who feel left out.  No more husband and wife, instead we'll have partner and partner.
The bill will be subject to a "conscience" or free vote. Each MP has a vote and it is up to each of them individually how they vote.

Conscience or free votes are allowed to stop caucuses ripping themselves apart trying to reach consensus on controversial issues that engender strong religious and moral concerns.

That makes the final vote hard to predict and there will be intense lobbying of individual MPs.
I would really love to see a referendum on how conscience votes should be treated.  They tend to be used when Parliament wants to tear down traditional moral values, and so far, I have not seen MP's consciences to be of a particularly high, moral standard worthy of such a weighty decisions.
I have enormous respect for conservative values and traditional ways of doing things. But here's the question for those pushing traditional values against same-sex marriage: what tradition do you want our Parliament to push back to? The death penalty? Flogging? Hard labour? Life imprisonment? Seven years' jail?
I'm not seeing any evidence of Hide's enormous respect for conservative values and traditional ways of doing things!  The respect seems to be higher for the right of Parliament to redefine what it wants to redefine.

My answer to Hide's question as to what traditions I want our Parliament to push back on, is traditions that work.  Marriage has been severely weakened by no-fault divorce, therefore  I would get rid of no-fault divorce and make the person who is at fault in the breakdown of a marriage walk away with nothing.  Basically, if you leave your spouse because you don't feel like working on your marriage any more, then you deserve to suffer for it.  Marriage vows should not be seen as temporary, and abandonment of a family should not be seen as no big deal.  If National really wants to save money on the family courts, they really ought to look at returning fault to divorce.
Our Parliament has a sad and sorry history in its treatment of two adults who just want to love and be with one another.
Our Parliament has a worse history in recent times in pandering to every liberal causes that rolls up and disregarding the effects on the children.  It's generally just all about the adults, or children independent from their parents, not about the intact family unit.  Changing marriage from a framework for children to just a romantic partnership turns children into unnecessary additions to marriage rather than being an intrinsic part of it.
Let's hope with Louisa Wall's bill that history is finally made just that: history.
Only by rejecting Louisa Wall's bill will history be made.  Parliament will have shown some backbone, which is sadly lacking right now.  However, in changing the law, the State will enact it's own demise over time, because it's only with strong families as it's backbone that states can survive.

Do I think the sky is falling?  No, because I believe in God and believe that good will be salvaged from evil, even if we are hurtling towards another dark age that to those of us in the midst of it, is very difficult to see if you don't know what you are looking for.  I do worry for my children, and for the children they will have, as the world they will grow up in will not be as easy as the one that I was raised in.

Related link: Rodney Hide: Wed for better, not worse

Previous Posts worth reading:
Same-sex marriage will devalue women in society
What will be undermined by same-sex marriage
Giant pratfall: Our culture slipping on a banana peel
Should Same-sex Couples be allowed to marry

UPDATE 7 August 2012, 10:30am:  Hi FaceBook people.  Can you please let me know who has linked to me from FaceBook!  Just leave a comment.  Thanks.

Friday, August 3, 2012

Lucia Made from the beginning, male and female

Here is part of the very first talk John Paul II gave on the theology of the body. He started with marriage and Our Lord's explanation of God's original plan for marriage - that man and woman become one flesh.  Also the vital importance of how human beings were originally created, as man and woman.  Not two men or two woman, but man and woman.

"And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, 'Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?' He answered, 'Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.' They said to him, 'Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?' He said to them, 'For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so'" (Mt 19:3ff., cf. also Mk 10:2ff.).

Christ did not accept the discussion at the level at which his interlocutors tried to introduce it. In a certain sense he did not approve of the dimension that they tried to give the problem. He avoided getting caught up in juridico-casuistical controversies. On the contrary, he referred twice to "the beginning." Acting in this way, he made a clear reference to the relative words in Genesis, which his interlocutors too knew by heart. From those words of the ancient revelation, Christ drew the conclusion and the talk ended.

From the beginning

"The beginning" means, therefore, that which Genesis speaks about. Christ quoted Genesis 1:27 in summary form: "In the beginning the Creator made them male and female." The original passage reads textually as follows: "God created man in his own image; in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Subsequently, the Master referred to Genesis 2:24: "Therefore, a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh." Quoting these words almost in full, Christ gave them an even more explicit normative meaning (since it could be supported that in Genesis they express de facto statements: "leaves. cleaves. they become one flesh"). The normative meaning is plausible since Christ did not confine himself only to the quotation itself, but added: "So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." That "let not man put asunder" is decisive. In the light of these words of Christ, Genesis 2:24 sets forth the principle of the unity and indissolubility of marriage as the very content of the Word of God, expressed in the most ancient revelation.

The eternal law

It could be maintained at this point that the problem is exhausted, that Jesus Christ's words confirm the eternal law formulated and set up by God from "the beginning" as the creation of man. It might also seem that the Master, confirming this original law of the Creator, did nothing but establish exclusively his own normative meaning, referring to the authority itself of the first Legislator. However, that significant expression "from the beginning," repeated twice, clearly induced his interlocutors to reflect on the way in which man was formed in the mystery of creation, precisely as "male and female," in order to understand correctly the normative sense of the words of Genesis. This is no less valid for the people of today than for those of that time.
Source: Of the unity and the Indissolubility of Marriage


Thursday, August 2, 2012

Fletch Gay Blogger Writes Agasint Same Sex Marriage For Irish Daily Mail

Saw this last night. It was originally published in April last year in the Irish Daily Mail and written by a gay blogger who does not agree with gay marriage. A lot of good points in his post. The whole thing is worth reading. He writes that marriage is not the "end point of romance", but the beginning of the family unit and of raising children.

I am not a big believer in people making arguments on the back of who or what they happen to be. When I last made the case in these pages against gay marriage, about a year ago, I didn’t feel the need to mention that I am gay myself. Arguments stand on their own two feet, or don’t, but not on the strength of who happens to be making them. Nor, I don’t mind adding, did I particularly want to drag my own life into what is often a bad-tempered debate. But I am concerned enough about the way things are going to make an exception.

Explaining that you oppose gay marriage as a gay man tends to get a baffled response at first. This is understandable given how quickly the debate on gay marriage can collapse into allegations of homophobia. The message, explicit or implicit, is often that being anti-gay marriage means being in some way anti-gay.


The reflex response from many gay marriage advocates is to paint all dissent as prejudice, as if the only reason for defending marriage as it has existed to date is some variety of bigotry or psychological imbalance


Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Lucia Politicians caving over same-sex marriage

I expect the National politicians who are "undecided" to cave over the same-sex marriage vote. Why? Well, John Key is basically telling them they should without overtly telling them through his comments in the media, and they will set themselves up for all sorts of grief if they don't vote the "right way" from the types of people who will boycott a baker because he refuses to make a wedding cake for a "gay marriage".

It's the modern test of morality for political elites to be on the right side of the gay marriage debate. If you are on the wrong side, you will be vilified. What politician wants that, especially if they have no strong moral backbone?

Listening to NewsTalkZB this morning, I noticed that both politicians that Mike Hosking had on with him were almost offended at the idea that such a massive change to a primary social institution should go to referendum. Their consciences were seen to be enough, even though Steven Joyce wasn't really ready at this point to tell any one as to which way his conscience was swinging.

Isn't it interesting how just a few months ago, when Judith Collins was asked by Rainbow Wellington about same-sex marriage, her reply to them was:

The Government has no plans to introduce same-sex marriage in the current Parliamentary term. As you are aware, there is considerable diversity of opinion on same-sex marriage.

And now, here we are, with the vast majority of National MPs undecided on which way they will go, with the PM stating that he will be voting to change marriage from Husband and Wife to Partner and Partner. Not in those explicit terms of course, but I think we need to get more explicit about what this change will actually mean.

Related link : How MPs plan to vote on gay marriage