Want Some Answers ???

Introduction
Intro
Home


Those interested - http://familyfirst.org.nz/ Articles covering this issue - http://www.spcs.org.nz/ Below, proof the State is at war with churches and those who on religious grounds, or conscience, object to conducting marriage ceremonies for homosexuals. The door for legal proceedings has been opened.



Submission to the Select Government Administration Committee.

Re. the Marriage Amendment Bill: 2012. (The Special laws for Sexual Practices - Bill)

By Mark Purchase ThD PhD

Introduction:


The nature of humanity and the purpose of human sexuality cannot be denied or ignored. No Government can un-legislate these indelible facts. The Redefinition of Marriage Bill denies the complementary nature of male and female and makes a mockery out of morality, marriage and human sexuality.

I submit a redefinition of the Marriage Act is –

Contrary to New Zealand's History:-

Such a redefinition of the Marriage Act is unconstitutional in New Zealand. Our society traditionally, has an established ceremonial union only between certain male and females, which serves for many reasons, and one is the protection of children and women. Not necessitated by governmental degree but foundational to our country. No government has the authority to re-engineering this NATURAL union which has served society well.

It’s contrary to the traditional values which constitute our history. And contrary the values of our forefathers who built this country and those died for our way of life. New Zealand predominantly has a Christian religious foundation. For the Christian biblical church, the Redefinition Bill denies the way God made us. It’s contrary to ‘God’s Word’ and can only be accepted by liberal churches that ignore the bible. Even the recent modern day focus on homosexuality does not mean such a redefinition is now accepted by all homosexual’s or all New Zealanders.

Contrary to What We Need:-

We need to build up and promote marriages we have already. Our country should maintain the current definition. There are enough problems facing marriages already. We don’t need anything to make marriage weaker or a joke as a result. We should not only desire a clean-green country, but one with moral integrity respected internationally.

Homosexual marriages by their own pledges must be and are naturally dead end relationships. But marriages where biological children result from a mum and dad are not. We need children to carry the family name unashamed, and ponder with fondness their parent’s example. The kind of respect and honour my family enjoy regarding our mum and dad.

All openness and acceptance of abnormal sexual behaviour breaks down the fundamentals of a healthy society, be it prostitution, multi-partners, incest, rape or group-sex, etc. These might be more acceptable today or even called ‘lawful’ but we don’t need children put in such ‘families’. The life long impact will be damaging, so we should pursue what’s right and what they need.

Contrary to True ‘Rights’:-

The issue is NOT about the acceptance of a race or skin colour and ‘human rights’. No, it’s NOT about a race of people, but their sexual practice and choice.

So should marriage be viewed as a fundamental ‘right’? Many don’t have a lawful right to marry (ie a man marry his daughter, a brother his sister, etc). Do we redefine marriage for THEIR ‘rights’? Some marriages would be unlawful (ie. polygamy, adult incest-type, etc). Do we redefine marriage for their ‘rights’?. The issue is NOT about ‘rights’, happiness, or openness to new concepts. Or eventually marriage WILL disappear. And the only recognition that can be made is that people have a sexual relationship. So, not all new concepts are beneficial. The issue is not if two love each other why not marry. Under the Civil Union such legislation already exists, and some are still not happy?

The Marriage Redefinition Bill is an ideology which WILL BE forced on others, contrary to the freedom and rights of New Zealander’s. Special laws for sexual practices are used already in law-courts against those who find them unacceptable. Many examples can be mentioned from Canada, United Kingdom, United States, Australia, Demark, etc where litigation and lawsuits already continue to result from special laws.

As with feminists, so with the gay-culture there will always be those with feelings of oppression or sexual inequality. Because some were sexually abused as children they matured with feelings of shame or injustice. Some feel deeply their unnatural behaviour is unaccepted. Some struggle, some escape the life-style. But some are crusaders but will never be happy. Some males feel oppressed that their “rights” [‘loving relationships’ with young boys 9-15yrs] shares the same injustice. In their criticism, they use the same arguments for equality and rights, even though society is now more tolerant of ‘any loving relationship’.

A Contradiction to Religious Freedom:-

Special laws promoting homosexuality today are used to menace, pressurize, intimidate, and threaten those called ‘intolerant’ and ‘bigoted’.

In many ways ‘homophobia’ arises out of a relentless drive trying to convert society. The denial of what is normal and natural causes a backlash. That is, the right to say something is ‘wrong’ which a new government law says is ‘lawful’.

To suggest that churches or any organization will be free to decide about such a Marriage Redefinition is nonsense. This naturally would be the next battle with the anti-discrimination and ‘equal rights’ activists. Objections by churches will be in breach of the Human Rights Act 1993 - which are now done with ‘civil unions’ legalisation. The law can be brought against any person, organization, church celebrant or institution failing to provide services to the public. Against any who are said to ‘discriminate’ against homosexuals, because their marriage will be ruled a fundamental “right” and “lawful” in New Zealand. Similar things occur ALREADY against hotels, motels, businesses, churches and schools are prosecuted for arguing standards of decency.

The absurdity of the Civil Unions Bill is that its promoters lied. That committee also was bias. They promised “marriage will remain only for heterosexual” (Helen Clark, Tim Barnett, M. Wilson, J. Key, C. Finlayson, etc). In 2004 there were 6,000 submissions on the Civil Union Bill, 91% against. That committee ignored them (Head of the committee was a homosexual) this is repeated. So it’s pointless to appear before the bias Select Committee who will act in a disgrace manner towards those with a contrary view.

And what about Mormons, Muslims or homosexuals who might feel discriminated against regarding their ‘right’ for polygamy? How can a redefinition bill be so intolerant to ignore them and deny their happiness and loving relationships? If all that matters is ‘love and commitment’? Any argument for same sex marriage applies for any number of adults wanting their relationships recognised, and more so if the law is redefined.

So no religious institution is free to live by their definition of marriage if outside New Zealand law. Celebrants presently cannot solemnise any couple they decide apart from New Zealand law.

Contrary to Real Marriages:-

A same sex marriage would be different and could not be regarded as normal because they are not. Nothing can change this fact.

The consequences of a law change will be far reaching the issue should not be decided by a few one-term politicians, for a few homosexuals. Only a small percentage of New Zealand’s population are homosexuals and only a few interested in ‘marriage’.

The impact will effect every area of society (ie education, business, commerce, entertainment, religion etc) this Bill should not be past by a select few for a select few.

Real marriages exist in society to regulate the obligations and responsibilities attended upon procreation. Procreation gives rise to marriage. Although a male and female couple maybe childless the principle still stands and applies. But this is impossible with same sex couples. So why legislate as if marriage has no basis other than ones arbitrary opinion?

Contrary to the Health and Welfare of Children:-

Homosexuality is a choice and a dangerous choice at that. A choice made by only a single percentage of people. Not only are there psychological concerns but a litany of serious health hazards. The human body was not designed for male to male sex, so is susceptible to injury and disease.

If there’s a redefinition of marriage what about adoption rights? Naturally this is the next step with the anti-discrimination and ‘equal rights’ activists. Yet no one has the right to adopt a child. The law must discriminate in favour of a child to ensure its social and emotional wellbeing. Children already suffer mentally and emotionally with same sex parents, why ignore this? If I was adopted by such, I’d be deeply offended having been placed in such a home.

Marriage between man and woman is the best way to ensure children grow up with their biological (natural) mothers and fathers. This cannot be improved. It’s what’s best for children and their physiological development and well-being. But with two mothers, neither can be a father and with two fathers, neither can be a mother. If kids lack these life-long role models where will they learn the fundamentals of female-male relationships? We should never intentionally deny them this right.

Children in homes where any kind of sexual perversion occurs, (ie prostitution, incest, porn, rape, unwanted contact) can, or more likely exhibit similar behaviour. Surely no one with common sense would intentionally place a child with such care-givers.

So if the Redefinition Bill is past what about adoption? Wouldn’t it be wrong to redefine marriage but deny people even more “rights”? But yet a child placed in such a home is a crime against the child. Most caregivers will mould and groom the next generation so it will more likely grow-up sexually confused. With the next generation, what will be their sexual preferences and ‘rights’ shocking the past generation?

Conclusion:

I conclude the government has no right to play God with marriage. Any law past contrary to our traditional history is an invention and proof of a morally corrupt Government. Sure the government will do what it wants. Sure it can redefine marriage so a man can marry his dog if they want. And then argue, how anybody can be so intolerant and bigoted to deny them, they are happy.

Why deny “equality” to any loving relationship? Because marriage is not something we simply refine for sexual preferences. Finally, the implications of a law change will have far reaching consequences for future generations. The law won’t change back [politicians are cowards] but I will never forgive this government, serve this nation, or honour our flag again.


Intro
Home