Want Some Answers ???

Index
Home


Below a copy of emails to Louisa Wall MP for Manure (Chair of Rainbow Labour a homosexual activist group) regarding the Same Sex Marriage Bill. The NZ Labour Party has done more to promote Sodomy in New Zealand than any other political Party. Promoting what is a crime against nature, anti-human, and disease and death. This is not eye opening correspondence, but an issue New Zealanders face in 2012

A Redefining Marriage Bill is an insult to the hardworking generations of past New Zealander’s who built this country. And to those who died to preserve families and our way of life. So a special law for very few.




To Louisa Wall MP for Manurewa.

Dear Madam

Re. Your letter in ‘The Challenge Weekly’ 23 July 2012. Iss.27, vol.70, p2. You write,

My marriage (Definition of marriage) Amendment Bill does not affect a person's personal views about marriage as this Bill is about the civil regulation of marriage. That is separate to the religious or biblical view or definition of marriage, which is not part of the law in New Zealand.

If your Bill passes, it will offend many and affect “
views about marriage” for future generations. Any “civil regulation of marriage” by changing its ‘definition’ will do that.

There are clear definitions given under NZ law regarding marriage. A Mormon or Muslim cannot marry 10 wives as they are subject to a definition of marriage ‘
part of the law in New Zealand’. So the “religious or biblical view or definition of marriage” is subject to “New Zealand” law. You write,

Unlike the UK, New Zealand has never had a State Church religious leaders are allowed by the state to satisfy the requirements for a civil marriage while performing a religious ceremony. The debate about marriage is essentially about the Government's acknowledgment of the relationship of two people.

The definition or importance of marriage does not rest on whether or not a country has a ‘
State Church’. But what a State, or government acknowledges as “relationships” is essential to health and wealth fare of a nation.

The only reason marriage exists, in society (from a human perspective) is to regulate the obligations and responsibilities attended upon procreation. Procreation gives rise to marriage. Even for a male/female marriage, yet they can’t have children the principle still applies. But its impossible between two males or females. When you start playing games with marriage you are acting as if marriage has no basis other than your own arbitrary wimps. This would deny reason for the institution of marriage. You write,


Religious institutions are still free to live by their definitions of marriage, which are often more restrictive than the states. Definitions, as some reject interfaith marriage and marriage after divorce. My bill will not regulate its own marriages.

Not entirely true. No "
religious institution" is “free to live by their definitions of marriage” if it is outside the law. You seem confused about NZ law and freedom in ‘religious institutions’. Beliefs re., remarriage or interfaith marriage are not defined under NZ law.

Section 29 of the Marriage of Act states that a celebrant or minister, is not obliged to marry a couple just because they have a licence. It is the choice that celebrant or minister makes and that section will remain unchanged.

Everyone knows celebrants are not under obligation “
to marry a couple just because they have a licence”. But your Bill brings a new definition to marriage. One you wish to be accepted and normalised. In the future, only a small amendment to the Marriage Act will require all celebrants to comply. So “gays” are not discriminated against.

And I want to highlight that a church is not a public place and the discrimination laws do not apply. In the same way as a celebrant or Minster is not obliged to marry a couple so too is a Church free to decline to solemnise the marriage of a couple if it chooses.

Most NZ churches seek to be public law-abiding gatherings. And NZ laws apply equally to them as all others. Whether slander, libel, censorship, or solemnising a marriage. Apart from NZ law, celebrants are NOT free “
to marry or solemnise” any couple they “choose”. Celebrants can’t marry - a father and his daughter, or a mother and her son etc.

I support the position churches to decide for themselves whether they recognise and solemnise marriages for two people other than a marriage between a man and a women.

The government has liberty to redefine marriage as it likes, ignoring referendum and churches. What they always do. But why write law where some “
decide for themselves whether they recognise” or obey?

What I ask for is the religious communities in New Zealand to respect the rights of their fellow New Zealanders to marry regardless of their sex, sexual orientation or gender identity.

In the past, marriage under NZ law has never been issue of “
rights” or “debate”. Its not a right “regardless of sex, orientation or gender”. Many don’t have ‘the right’ to marry. A parent cannot marry their child, or a boy his sister (‘incest’). Or a man many wives, his dog, nor can four people each other, or a person themself. They could ask you to “respect” their “rights”. Will you discriminate by your marriage definition?

Under whose authority do specific Church members deny their fellow New Zealanders the right to the social institution of a marriage? Louisa Wall MP for Manurewa.

NZ law forbids various marriages for various reasons. So “
fellow New Zealanders” do not have “the right” of marriage. The question should be “under whose authority” gives you the right to redefine the ‘institution of marriage’?

A good church member knowing his bible as ‘God’s Word’ will quote God Himself. You won’t like what He says. So why trampled over the rights of ‘normal people’ who object to unnatural sexual practices?

Homosexuality is a choice (and a dangerous choice at that) only a single percentage of people make. A choice proven to lead to a litany of serious health hazards not only for the individuals but for society as a whole.

World-wide most countries oppose same-sex marriage. 31 US States overwhelmingly voted for constitutional amendments to protect marriage as only between one-man, one-woman. Why? Because they believe this is normal, natural and healthy for their country.

What you promote is two people by choice, childless because of an unnatural relationship. Why encourage dead-end relationships? All openness and acceptance of abnormal sexual behavior breaks down the fundamentals of a healthy society. Be it prostitution, sleeping around, transvestites, incest, rape, gang-rape, group-sex, sex with animals, etc, etc.

Will you be consistent “
regardless of their sex (or) sexual orientation” and support them? And be critical of those who call these “perversions”? If people are born homosexuals, why aren’t babies sexually active at birth?
The stated agenda of leading gender-activists is not widely known in NZ. They want State Schools compelled to teach the unnatural as natural. They say the first three years are the most important in a child's life for education. So they want to educate them from feelings of shame, sexual restraint or embarrassment. Eventually, sex education practiced in class! Day-care children co-hurst so none mature homophobic.

There are long term implications for society. Your Bill is about ‘Gay adoption’ too. Since homosexuals require special laws, as their unnatural relationships don’t produce children, adoption is next. And this about enticing children into homosexuality too. But what’s best for kids?

There’s plenty of good evidence if kids lack good role models they are more likely grow up with problems in life. Unnatural sexual lifestyles are proven to increase the chances of kids becoming victims to alcohol and drug abuse, depression and even suicide.

If kids have same sex parents their character will be severely affected. Brain development is unable to distinguish or learn the fundamentals of normal male or female behaviors. There are many things impossible to learn by dictatorial instruction in a class at school. Children model adult behavior. But with two women, neither can be a father and with two men neither can be a mother. Depriving kids of either mother or father intentionally seriously effects them. It’s inhuman to take an innocent child, give them care-givers which results in perverting their sexuality and robbing them of a normal life.

Law and politics can never change what is unnatural. Historically only what is normal can build up, strengthen society and individuals and is ideal.

Yours sincerely



Kia ora Dr Mark Purchase,

Thank you for taking the time to write to me. In fact, here was the letter I submitted in full to Challenge Weekly below – you will note they neglected to convey to readers such as yourself all of my contribution to what I hope will be on-going discussion and dialogue.

You ask under whose authority I am entitled to submit a members bill of this nature – that would be the people of Manurewa who voted for me. We were transparent in our manifesto that this was a priority for Labour, I am proud to Chair Labour’s Rainbow caucus and subsequently to draft a bill, placed in the ballot that has been selected.

I am proud to represent the interests of New Zealanders who form part of the Rainbow community – living in a democracy for me is about the needs and interests of all peoples being represented.

Kia piki te ora,
Louisa




Kia ora Louisa

Thanks for your quick reply. The ‘authority’ you claim to submit a ‘members’ Bill runs rough-shot over the rest of the country. Strange logic that you are entitled to redefine NZ's 'institution of marriage' because “the people of Manurewa voted for” you (In NZ more voted National). And strange how anyone could vote for someone who promised to corrupt and destroy our families, children and society.

Yes historically Labour deserves the title ‘The Homosexual Party’. But what drives your Bill is not people in Manurewa, but (as you say) “
Labour’s Rainbow caucus”. Activists who serve their own agenda. Having the homosexual community re-write NZ’s marriage law is like Labour (in 2003) with the Prostitute’s Collective rewrite prostitution. No wonder we have a prostitution problem today as ever before. Head of the Committee Tim Barnett (gay activist) ignored everything but his own.

Labour is a strange party. This country is paying an enormous price for broken marriages and families, with over "120,000" kids growing up without dads. Yet in power, Labour encouraged everything dishonouring traditional marriage and families. Now it wants more marriages?

Talk about "rights". Walk around a public supermarket or street, ‘gays’ are not distinguished by race, skin colour or clothes. No, this is NOT the acceptance of people but a practice and choice. But what an example for kids? An MP for Manurewa who "proudly” encourages and promotes abnormal sexual behaviour.

The State should not interfere with the institution of marriage unless to strengthen it. Or write law causing kids to grow-up confused, ignorant of natural relationships between male and female. With a life of shame and embarrassment with "parents" who are anything but normal. Isn’t that child abuse?

What referendum drives your Bill? In 2004 6,000 submissions were made against the Civil Union Bill, 91% against. Chair of the committee Chris Carter, (another Labour homosexual activist) ignored them all. He wrote,

“I teach my children it doesn’t matter who they form a relationship with…. that is the kind of New Zealand I’m fighting for despite your protests…I deny your right to judge me…”

Notice 'judgments' are prohibited, and all ages are encouraged into sexual freedom. He 'utterly' rejected my 'right' to any other view. Isn't that discrimination? If “it doesn’t matter who” what’s wrong with paedophilia, prostitutes, incest or animals? How can parents point kids the right way, when politicians encourage kids the wrong way?

But your Bill may pass, with the de-facto, threatening and block-voting that goes on. And marriage no longer has the unique or special status it deserves. It’s been attacked over the years. Homosexual activists on record saying they ‘hate it’ and want it ‘destroyed’ (Queer Nation).

A sad day for this country. Political parties have consistently voted against the traditional foundation of our country. They voted down the traditional family unit, rejecting what's best for children's welfare. Families need what strengthens and protects, not what redefines or undermines. When politicians undermine the importance of parents, they harm the nation. And the last Labour Rainbow government is largely responsible for the huge attack on the morals of our nation.

Yours sincerely
Mark


One implication if this bill passes – - A Homosexual Adoption amendment Bill. Scenario -

Two men 'marry' And deeply ingrained in the homosexual life style they love young boys. They have money so they adopt. Don’t you dare utter a word against or discriminate their entirely lawful ‘rights’. They only adopt boys, lots of them, younger the better. And easily groom the young impressible minds. Their “family” has different standards and behaviour than yours. The gay-culture, friends, literature and behaviour is everywhere in their house. Obviously the kids grow up ‘gay’ and move away. Now the men want to adopt more young boys. It’s all legal, supported by educators, government and considered laughable that the law would ever be changed back.

(Note, although I use the word ‘gay’. It’s slang and misleading. It should be ‘homosexual’. Such are not necessarily ‘happy’ at all).


Intro
Home