• Home
  • About
  • Objectives
  • Membership
  • Donations
  • Activities
  • Research Reports
  • Submissions
  • Newsletters
  • Contact

SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

  • Censorship
    • Censorship & New Technology
    • Film Ratings
    • Films
  • Crime
    • Rape statistics
    • Television Violence
    • Violence
    • Youth Crime
  • Enforcement
  • Family
    • Anti-smacking Bill
    • Families Commission
    • Marriage
  • Gambling Addiction
  • Political Advocacy
  • Pro-life
    • Abortion
  • Prostitution
  • Sexuality
    • Child Sex Crimes
    • Civil Unions
    • HIV/AIDS STIs
    • Homosexuality
    • Kinsey Fraud
    • Porn Link to Rape
    • Pornography
    • Sex Studies
    • Sexual Dysfunction
  • Other
    • Alcohol abuse
    • Announcement
    • Application For Leave
    • Broadcasting Standards Authority
    • Celebrating Christian Tradition
    • Children’s Television
    • Complaints to Broadcasters
    • Computer games
    • Film & Lit Board Reviews
    • Film & Lit. Board Appointments
    • Human Dignity
    • Moral Values
    • Newsletters
    • Newspaper Articles
    • Recommended Books
    • Submissions
    • YouTube

Same-sex ‘marriage’ v. real marriage: Consummation, intimacy and covenant relationship

April 15, 2013 by SPCS Leave a Comment

The gay lobby and their useful id##ts in the government and media have brilliantly manipulated the limited public debate about same-sex marriage by capturing the word ‘equality’. But by framing it as an equalities and human rights issue they have messed with our language and wilfully disregarded the underlying realities.

The problem is that biology, nature or God (which I prefer, of course) has ensured that a same-sex couple can never undertake the act of marriage no matter how much they love each other or how long they live together. Two men (or two women) are physically unable to be naturally intimate and consummate their union through an activity that unites them and has the potential to reproduce and provide the next generation.

This is the essence of marriage and, further, in its purest ideal it is the private act that follows the public exchange of vows and signing of public documents; it is the intimate deed of physical and spiritual union that on the marriage night completes the coming together of two individuals and engages them in the mystical mathematics of procreation: 1+1 = 1 = 3+. It is consummation which transforms the marriage ceremony from a contract to a covenant.

I’m aware of course that the ideal is more honoured in the breach than the observance as today few couples refrain from sexual relations until the wedding night and many choose to co-habit rather than marry. But, for instance, financial honesty is another ideal that is vital to society’s wellbeing and is enshrined in the nation’s law. The fact that it is breached by everyone from corporate fat-cat tax fiddlers to single mums who falsely claim benefits and students who bunk the bus doesn’t deny the importance of the ideal. We have not (yet) attempted to redefine honesty and make it more inclusive …..

I am also aware that by choice or disability some married couples do not procreate. But this too doesn’t change the marriage ideal or its social value.

Of course two men or two women can have a legally-defined relationship which may or may not be called a civil partnership. A lesbian couple or two spinster sisters may love each other and live together all their adult lives; certainly where necessary the state ought to provide for them by statute. (The state currently and unfairly provides for the first but not the second) But they can no more be married than they can defy gravity.

Consummation is so central to marriage that it too is enshrined in the nation’s law which decrees that marriage is voidable if it is not consummated.

See: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1973/18#section-12

This is the crux of the matter: the hard reality is that consummation physically cannot take place except between heterosexuals so the government has been forced to fudge and create a fundamental inequality in its ‘equal marriage’. Through the legislation and unlike heterosexual couples, same-sex couples will be exempted from any need to consummate their ‘marriage’.

So what’s in the word? They are married but not married. They are one but not one. They are the same but not the same. They are equivalent but certainly not equal.

It is Through The Looking-Glass stuff and a socially destructive confusion of the meaning of marriage by the government: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less”.

In the next post we will look at other inequalities and the discrimination against minorities that will be created if the Bill becomes law. Meanwhile I’m praying that politically the Dumpty in Downing Street has a great fall over his Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill.

Source: For complete article see:

Unequal Marriage – 1. Posted 22/03/2013 by Alan Angle

http://www.alansangle.com/?cat=135

For details on Alan Angle see: http://www.alansangle.com/?page_id=2

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Homosexuality, Marriage, Sexual Dysfunction Tagged With: consummation, same-sex couple

Family First NZ’s “21 Reasons Why Marriage Matters” mailout brochure ruled within advertsing laws

April 15, 2013 by SPCS Leave a Comment

The Chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in a ruling dated 12 April 2013, stated that it had “No Grounds to Proceed” over a formal complaint lodged by “A. Charman” on 25 March 2013 about Family First’s “21 Great Reasons to Keep Marriage as is” brochure (Complaint No 13107).

To view and download the outstanding 24-page colour full brochure, highly recommended by SPCS and supplied to all MPs, go to:

http://www.nzmarriage.org.nz/21-Reasons-Why-Marriage-Matters.pdf

The complainant claimed that the brochure’s “extraordinarily offensive” on the grounds that it allegedly equates same-sex marriage with paedophilia and incest; denigrates children of same-sex couples and advocates for the need for children to have “a mother and a father” which was hurtful to children of single-parent and same-sex families.

The complainant also said the brochure was “inflammatory, largely incorrect and was filled with biases”.

[SPCS has assessed these complaints and determined that they are spurious and absurd and would not be supported by any reasonable-minded New Zealander]

However the ASA says the brochure is an advocacy advertisement of a religious nature which presents a point of view from a particular organisation which, in this case, advocates against the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill that’s currently before Parliament.

Its Chairman “acknowledged the sincere concerns” of the person who complained, but says the law allows for robust expression of belief or opinion in ads, irrespective of the message.

Please download and distribute this valuable resource: http://www.nzmarriage.org.nz/21-Reasons-Why-Marriage-Matters.pdf

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Advertising Stardards Authority, Censorship, Homosexuality, Marriage Tagged With: 21 Reasons Why Marriage, 21 Reasons Why Marriage Matters, Adverrtising Standards Authority, ASA

Religious freedom & ‘gay marriage’ cannot coexist- by attorney Matt Barber

April 15, 2013 by SPCS Leave a Comment

Therefore pride is their necklace; they clothe themselves with violence. – Psalm 73:6

“Gay pride” necessitates anti-Christian hate. It must. “Gay marriage” and other “sexual orientation”-based laws do violence to freedom and truth. They are the hammer with which the postmodern left intends to bludgeon bloody religious liberty and the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic.

According to the unequivocal moral precepts of the Judeo-Christian tradition – explicit throughout both the Old and New Testaments – homosexual behavior is sin. Sin is evil. Homosexual behavior is the central, defining characteristic of so-called “gay marriage.” Therefore, “gay marriage” is evil. Christians are obligated to avoid sin – to “do no evil.”

I know; it’s not popular to speak such simple truths in today’s politically correct world. But I’m not out to win a popularity contest.

Most homosexuals know intuitively, I think, that their lifestyle is unnatural and immoral and that the oxymoronic notion of “same-sex marriage” is a silly farce. Thus, they must force others to affirm both their self-destructive lifestyle and their mock “marriages” under penalty of law. They must physically compel everyone to engage their “emperor’s new clothes” delusion, so they can feel better about bad behavior.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/religious-freedom-gay-marriage-cannot-coexist/#AyFzLwKZEllmz8gF.99

Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating on constitutional law. He serves as vice president of Liberty Counsel Action – http//libertycounselaction.org 

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Homosexuality, Marriage Tagged With: anti-Christian hate, gay marriage, gay pride, religious freedom, same-sex marriage, sexual orientation

Same-sex ‘marriage’: John Key on “gay” ‘marriage’, civil unions and Brad Pitt

April 14, 2013 by SPCS Leave a Comment

Shortly before the New Zealand general election on 8 November 2008, John Key, who was the then deputy leader of the opposition National Party, was asked by GayExpress Magazine whether he would “vote for civil unions if it were presented again today”. His response was “No”. GayExpress notes that he had opposed civil unions at the second reading of the Civil Union bill in 2004, along with 24 other National MPs. When asked by the GayExpress whether he would vote for “gay marriage” if it were presented today (2008), he answered “No”.

Just four and a half years later, Prime Minister John Key, along with the majority of his party, have indicated that they will be voting in support of Louisa Wall’s ‘same-sex marriage’ bill on Wednesday 17 April 2013. (Neither the National Party, nor any other party indicated in their respective election manifestos that they were intending to bring in or push for same-sex  ‘marriage’ should they become the government)

The Rt. Hon. John Key was featured in television reports on the February 2013 Big Gay Out being kissed and hugged by homosexual men and cosying up to “drag queens”. The Stuff report states:

“John Key is usually popular at the largest gay pride event in New Zealand… It was his seventh time at the event…. Key spoke to the crowd and reaffirmed his plans to vote for Labour MP Louisa Wall’s Marriage Amendment Bill, which would see same sex couples afforded the same rights of marriage as heterosexuals.”

It is noteworthy that when Key was asked by GayExpress “who would be go gay for?” … and “after taking a moment to compose himself”  – he responded:

“‘Brad Pit. Now that he’s a bit older, he’s a bit of a looker. I was going to say Tom Cruise but someone of his age shouldn’t look that age.”

Who John Key would want to have “gay” sex with is apparently of great interest to the readers of Gay Express.

Family First NZ is running a Marriage Pledge campaign calling voters not to support any political party at the next election whose leader has supported Louisa Wall’s bill that supports “gay” marriage.

References:

Express 22 Oct – 4 Nov 2008. Face of Election Special – John Key by Hannah JV

http://www.protectmarriage.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/John-Key-Gay-express.pdf

Mixed reception for Key at Big Gay Out by Charles Anderson, 10 February 2013

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8284962/Mixed-reception-for-Key-at-Big-Gay-Out

http://www.mymarriagepledge.org.nz/

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Homosexuality, Marriage Tagged With: gay marriage, John Key, Prime Minister John Key, same-sex marriage

Ruthless campaign by the gay rights lobby to destroy the very ­concept of normal sexual behaviour

April 13, 2013 by SPCS Leave a Comment

Yes, “gays” have often been the victims of prejudice. But they now risk becoming the new McCarthyites.

Here’s a question ­shortly coming to an examination ­paper near you. What have mathematics, geography or science to do with homosexuality?

Nothing at all, you say? Zero marks for you, then.

For, mad as this may seem, schoolchildren are to be bombarded with homosexual references in maths, geography and ­science lessons as part of a Government-backed drive to promote the gay agenda.

In geography, for example, they will be told to consider why homosexuals move from the ­countryside to cities. In maths, they will be taught ­statistics through census ­findings about the number of ­homosexuals in the population.

In science, they will be directed to ­animal species such as emperor ­penguins and sea horses, where the male takes a lead role in raising its young.

Alas, this gay curriculum is no laughing matter. Absurd as it sounds, this is but the latest attempt to brainwash children with propaganda under the ­camouflage of ­education. It is an abuse of childhood.

And it’s all part of the ruthless campaign by the gay rights lobby to destroy the very ­concept of normal sexual behaviour.

Source. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1349951/Gayness-mandatory-schools-Gay-victims-prejudice-new-McCarthyites.html#ixzz2QHaLq7l4

Not so long ago, an epic political battle raged over teaching children that ­homosexuality was normal. The fight over Section 28, as it became known, resulted in the repeal of the legal requirement on schools not to promote homosexuality.

As the old joke has it, what was once impermissible first becomes tolerated and then becomes mandatory.

And the other side of that particular coin, as we are now discovering, is that values which were once the moral basis for British society are now deemed to be beyond the pale.

What was once an attempt to end ­unpleasant attitudes towards a small sexual minority has now become a kind of bigotry in reverse.

Expressing what used to be the moral norm of Western civilisation is now not just socially impermissible, but even turns upstanding people into lawbreakers.

The bed and breakfast hoteliers Peter and Hazelmary Bull — who were recently sued for turning away two homosexuals who wished to share a bedroom — were but the latest religious believers to fall foul of the gay inquisition merely for upholding ­Christian values.

Catholic adoption agencies were forced to shut down after they refused to place ­children with same-sex couples. Marriage registrars were forced to step down for refusing to officiate at civil unions.

Christian street preacher Dale McAlpine was charged with making threatening, ­abusive or insulting remarks for saying homosexuality was a sin to passers-by in Workington, Cumbria. In the event, the case against him was dropped and he won a police apology and compensation.

It seems that just about everything in Britain is now run according to the gay agenda.

For, in addition to the requirement for gay-friendly hotels, gay adoption and gay mathematics, now comes, apparently, gay drugs policy.

Last week, the Government announced the appointment of some new ­members to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, who included a GP by the name of  Hans-Christian Raabe.

Dr Raabe has long maintained a close interest in drug policy, on which he has robustly traditional views. He has spoken out in favour of ­abstinence-based approaches and criticised the flawed logic behind the claim that it is the illegality of drugs such as ­cannabis that is the problem.

Considering the unhappy fact that over recent years many on the Advisory Council have taken the ultra-liberal view that ­treating drug-users is the priority rather than reducing their numbers, Dr Raabe’s membership of the council was very ­welcome news.

But as soon as his appointment was announced, Dr Raabe was targeted in an astonishing attack.

For he is also a leading member of the Manchester-based Maranatha Community, which is dedicated to re-establishing ­Christian values in society and which campaigns against gay rights.

It was the BBC’s Home Editor Mark ­Easton who led the charge. On his BBC News blog, he announced that Dr Raabe’s views on homosexuality were causing such fury among (anonymous) members of the Advisory Council that at least one member was threatening to step down.

Well may you rub your eyes at that. Just what have his views on homosexuality got to do with illegal drugs? Well, according to Easton, more than one member of the ­council is gay or lesbian.

How extraordinary. Just imagine if the boot were on the other foot and Dr Raabe had refused to serve on the drugs council because some of its ­members were gay. He would be out on his ear within the hour.

How reprehensible of the BBC to lend itself to such a partisan attack. Unsurprisingly, Easton’s remarks provoked more advocates of drug ­liberalisation to join in the blood-sport of baiting Dr Raabe.

Yesterday’s Observer listed among his crimes certain briefing documents he had produced for MPs identifying the benefits of marriage in fighting drug addiction.

He had written, for example, that marriage is associated with greater happiness, less depression, less alcohol abuse and less smoking. But what’s the problem with that? It ­happens to be true.

The Observer reported that drugs charities and experts expressed surprise that someone of such ‘stringent opinions’ could be appointed to the Advisory Council.

Clearly, ‘stringent opinions’ in favour of drug liberalisation are considered entirely appropriate in such circles; but anyone who goes against the politically-correct grain on homosexuality or who has robust Christian views must be considered a bigot and thus have no place in public life.

In fact, anyone truly concerned to end the scourge of drug abuse should be delighted that at last there is a strong voice for ­common sense and morality on the ­Advisory Council.

Penalising religious people for speaking and acting in accordance with their beliefs is neither liberal nor tolerant. It is behaviour more commonly associated with totalitarian dictatorships.

It must be said that many gay people are themselves uneasy or even appalled by this increasingly oppressive use of their cause. Privately, many will say that all they ever want is to live free from discrimination and not to provoke discrimination against others.

After the case of Christian street preacher Dale McAlpine, the gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell spoke out in ­support of the rights of people to express their views against homosexuality — although, by ­contrast, he also endorsed the lawsuit against B&B owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull on the grounds that the equality laws should apply to all.

Of course, for people such as the Bulls, George Orwell’s famous observation that some are more equal than others is all too painfully true. Indeed, the obsession with equality has now reached ludicrous, as well as oppressive, proportions.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has paid £100,000 for a report into how efforts to boost Britain’s coastal fish stocks would affect minority communities including the Chinese, ­homosexuals and Welsh speakers.

And the Department for Transport issued a study looking at harassment and discrimination on ships and hovercraft against a range of groups, including transsexuals.

Many different groups are involved in promoting this crazy, upside-down world of the equality agenda. But the seemingly all-­powerful gay rights lobby carries all before it. If it isn’t careful, it risks turning gay people from being the victims of prejudice into Britain’s new McCarthyites.

Source:

Story by Melanie Philips
24 January 2011

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1349951/Gayness-mandatory-schools-Gay-victims-prejudice-new-McCarthyites.html#ixzz2QHaLq7l4

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Homosexuality Tagged With: gay agenda, gay curriculum, gay rights lobby, Homosexuality, McCarthyites

« Previous Page
Next Page »
SPCS Facebook Page

Subscribe to website updates:

The Pilgrim’s Progress

Getting "The Pilgrim’s Progress" to
every prisoner in NZ prisons.

Recent Comments

  • John on The term ‘Homophobia’: Its Origins and Meanings, and its uses in Homosexual Agenda
  • SPCS on Corporate corruption in New Zealand – “Banning badly behaving company directors”
  • Anne on Corporate corruption in New Zealand – “Banning badly behaving company directors”
  • Jake on John Clancy: Troubled Global group costs Christchurch City Council another $37,000
  • Jake on John Clancy: Troubled Global group costs Christchurch City Council another $37,000

Family Values & Community Standards

  • Coalition for Marriage
  • ECPAT New Zealand
  • Family Voice Australia
  • Parents Inc.

Internet Safety

  • Netsafe Internet Safety Group

Pro-Life Groups

  • Family Life International
  • Right to Life
  • The Nathaniel Centre
  • Voice for Life
(Click here for larger image)

Copyright © 2025 · News Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.