SPCS

Fenella Bovett <Fenella.Bovett@parliament.govt.nz>

Secretary
Government Administration Committee
Parliament Buildings
WELLINGTON 6011

{ackn requested}

		Submission on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) 
Amendment Bill

Name of Individual: L. R. B. Mann


The Bill is Language-Tampering
	The many reasons why the bill should be withdrawn include one 
which has been too little noticed (so far): Parliament should not 
utter nonsense or deceit. The concept 'same-sex "marriage" ' 
literally makes no sense, i.e is incapable of even being right or 
wrong. The term 'same-sex marriage' is an oxymoron. The bill's 
attempt at re-defining marriage is therefore outside the 
legislature's valid role. It is no proper business of Parliament to 
mouth words that have no valid meaning.
	This crippling fault of the bill is not to be confused with 
the various moral points which the committee will hear about. Before 
we can discuss morals we do need to be clear about the main terms 
used.
	My point is 'just' a matter of what a dictionary is, and the 
requisite role of agreed terms in legislation (and in administration 
more widely).

The categories of union
	Human intimate bonds of different kinds are denoted by their names,
e.g .

* homosexual civil union,
		 as distinct from
* marriage (the term means one man, one woman, for life at least in 
sustained attempt),
* polygamy as in early Mormons,
* etc.
	To change the definition of any of these categories is to 
attempt language-tampering of a bad kind whch could cause severe 
social harm.
 To illustrate such possibllities, here is my persuasion {1997} of 
Brian Edwards about the propaganda term 'homophobia'

------

	Realising that you are trained in psychology, I point out 
that the phobias are a significant category of illness, characterised 
by debilitating irrational fearfulness. If there exists a particular 
version of this psychopathology with homosexuals as its fixation, I 
have yet to learn of it, but in any case the term "homophobia" should 
be reserved for that condition (be it hypothetical or real).
	Warren Lindberg, Kevin Hague, and their whole set of 
homosexual activists wallowing in the pseudo-victim role, instead use 
"homophobia" with not only the meaning which you stated - prejudice 
against homosexuals - but mainly a further, completely illegitimate 
meaning: they misuse this term "homophobia" to smear, ad hominem, any 
misgivings about homosexuality as a political cause.
	To get down to reality, criticising the politically militant 
homosexuals such as Lindberg has several good grounds quite aside 
from any prejudice. They promote homosexuality amongst adolescents 
by misrepresentations of human biology. They promulgate falsehoods 
about "safe" sex which are gravely misleading. They grossly 
exaggerate the efficacy of condoms against HIV, in attempt to 
continue the promiscuous homosexual lifestyle which was severely 
challenged by the onset of the AIDS epidemic. The Men's Centre North 
Shore, on whose committee I serve, could provide a couple of expert 
interviewees from whom an interview could elicit the truth on these 
important issues.
	To conclude back on the philology theme:
the word "homophobia" hijacks an important form of word which should 
be preserved for its valid & important function: Z-phobia means 
irrational, debilitating fear of Z. Misuse of psychiatric diagnoses 
for ideological purposes had a sordid history under Stalin and 
Hitler, and should find no place in New Zealand public health 
discussions. 
	You should at least desist from using this 
lie-in-the-language "homophobia", and preferably become active in 
explaining how it is wrong. Lies in the language are among the most 
horribly effective and are central in the Goebbels tradition which, 
to a most dismaying extent, perverts today's world. Try compiling a 
list of lies-in-the-language: "reclaimed land" (meaning filled-in 
water or wetland) etc. . . . [also: Rightsizing. Reforms 
(Rogernomics, Ruthanasia). Women's liberation. Repatriation (export 
of profits for foreign investors). Feminism.]

yrs etc

---------

	One US state legislature once made a fool of itself by 
declaring that 'pi' (the circle's ratio circumf./dia.) is 22/7. The 
New Zealand legislature must not allow this comparable attempt to 
change the dictionary.
	To utter a deliberately deceitful nonsense, entailed in the 
oxymoron 'same-sex marriage' and related deceitful terms such as 
'marriage equality', is such a wrongful, disgraceful act for a 
legislature that this reason alone would justify discharging the bill.

The bill's context
	The bill is only the latest in the political campaign usually 
ascribed to USA authors Erastes & Pill. Most of the aims there 
defined two decades ago have now been attained. This decadent 
process is now to be stopped. The civil union is the most that NZ 
law should offer to deviants' unions.
	Yes, same-sex unions are as a matter of fact deviant. The 
human long-term intimate sexual relationship in which children, and 
adults, are healthiest in mind & body is marriage. The other types 
of relationship in the dictionary list are all much less successful, 
in sustaining health of mind & body.
	 An aim of the bill is to legalise adoption by homosexual 
couples. In a country lacking children for adoption by married 
couples, that is a cruel policy.

	Most of the other reasons normally urged against the bill are 
in my opinion correct. In the absence of any valid reasons for such 
a bill, it should be promptly discharged. As a tiresome distraction 
from Parliament's proper business, it is inherently offensive to 
respect for law.

	I wish to appear before the committee at their venue closest 
to my home.

				L. R. B. Mann