Periodical Political Post *126

Queer News

Other News

  

11 thoughts on “Periodical Political Post *126”

  1. Josh, Small slip up in your headline // Sir Tim Berners-Lee did not invent the Internet as you know.

    Meanwhile – if Gay couples wish a religious marriage and their religion refuses to accommodate their wishes then that’s just an indicator that their religion is not worth following. If you feel you must be married within a church then it’s easy enough to create your own. In fact it’s easy enough to invent your own God too — that could be a fun wedding with lots of wacky rules. :)
    I don’t think the opting out of churches from Gay marriage is remarkable. The main thing is to get the right equality legislation enacted. Screw the churches and screw religion.

  2. re: New Zealand churches to ignore marriage equality
    “The vast majority of faith groups in New Zealand have indicated they will not perform same-sex marriages even if the bill currently before the parliament to legalize them passes both houses.Catholic, Anglican, Baptist, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and orthodox Jewish religious denominations have all indicated their opposition.”

    Nothing new there. In beginning, their ‘god’ created and begat idiots to believe all that begotting. And their insistence to ignore a potential law makes them just like American religions.

    “Anwar Ghani, president of the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand, told Stuff.co.nz that same-sex marriage was unacceptable under Muslim law.’Our position is very clear – Islam does not allow marriages of same sex. Islam views marriage not just for recreation, but for procreation,’ Ghani he said.”

    Really? And ‘procreation’ of what, exactly? More totally brainwashed slaves?

    Interesting how religions are so much for ‘procreation,’ but for the most part, don’t give a shit after they’re born. Examine the many, totally filled orphanages (or, in the case of islam, mini-slave repositories) [pro-]created by all these religious idiots. Outlaw condoms and abortion, but don’t offer and pay for the necessary and proper care for the many who end up disabled (in so many ways), abused (in just as many ways, including psychological) and essentially unwanted.

    1. I may be wrong Penboy, but I think the New Zealand Parliament is Unicameral? i.e. it only has a Lower House of Commons.

      Stephen.

    2. Yeah but you forget, Gawd will provide as he loves all his children except queers who think sex is just for fun.

    3. Islamic countries don’t have any more orphans than anywhere else, so don’t use this forum as just another place to do some bashing. I think the vast majority of religious institutions have similar failings!

      As for speaking out against abortions and condoms, that trend began with the Roman Catholic church, was picked up by many Protestant denominations in the USA and was only very much later picked up as an issue in Islam.

      We must continue to speak up that every child born is wanted and loved and respected — and keep away from the unnecessary divisiveness over which religion is worse than another.

      1. I did not say that islamic countries have more orphans than anywhere else — I was simply giving a description for them, not implying there are a higher number. Read it properly — as I wrote it, not as you want to imagine it. In fact, I do believe there are probably fewer ‘orphans’ in islamic countries because they probably “do away” with more than we know about, and won’t even bother caring for them in any “orphanages.”

        Regardless, we/they shouldn’t have/need so many of these orphanages just to house children who are basically not wanted by their “creators” [that's parents --- not any "god"].

  3. RFID chips? How is that possible? Passports and bank cards have RFID chips? Does that mean they GPS track every card and passport, too?

    All the literature says they can only read RFID cards with a reader inches away, but if they can track livestock and children on GPS…

  4. We should only believe in laws that accommodate our likes. You bitch because those New Zealand churchs well not marry gay couples. You say the churchs are not obeying the law. We hav many laws in America that say no to gay marriage. Its the law and you want the churchs to go against it. The gay community keeps harping on marriage for gay couples. Marriage is a hetrosexual thing. Gay community needs the same rights as hetrosexual couples,with out the marriage tag. There are a lot of gay couples who feel the same as me.

    1. “Marriage is a heterosexual thing.” I tend to agree with you. However, marriage seems to be an acceptance issue for many gays plus there are advantages to being a married couple.

    2. I quite agree.
      These news items that strengthen my idea that any advantages in interpersonal relationships should be entirely based on a civil union, not a church/mosque/temple/synagogue/whatever one. The religious sauce would be merely the icing, not the entire cake.

  5. Hmm… I can’t agree with Weled.
    Interpersonal relationships are mutually advantageous only when they are voluntary. Interventions by any third party ( including governments and especially governments!) turns positive-sum games ( voluntary interactions) into zero-sum ( or even negative-sum) games, where ones benefit themselves at the expense of others.
    Any voluntary association ( including a church) has full right to impose any rules on its members. And nobody from aside has any right to foist their rules on other persons and associations.
    So, I’m for NZ churches and against the bunch of self-imposed moral superiors sitting in Beehive ( or rather a wasp nest), and commanding how other people should live their lives.
    (I’m an atheist btw.)

Leave a Reply