• 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

Porn Users and their Support for Same-Sex Marriage

December 29, 2012 by SPCS Leave a Comment

Young adult men’s support for redefining marriage may not be entirely the product of ideals about expansive freedoms, rights, liberties, and a noble commitment to fairness. It may be, at least in part, a byproduct of regular exposure to diverse and graphic sex acts.

This is the conclusion reported on in the Witherspoon Institute: Public Discourse by Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin and the author of “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships – Findings from the Family Structures Study,” published in the July 2012 issue of Social Science Research.

Data from the New Family Structures Study reveal that when young adult Americans (ages 23-39) are asked about their level of agreement with the statement “It should be legal for gays and lesbians to marry in America,” the gender difference emerges, just as expected: 42 percent of men agreed or strongly agreed, compared with 47 percent of women of the same age. More men than women disagreed or strongly disagreed (37 versus 30 percent), while comparable levels (21-23 percent) said they were “unsure.”

But of the men who view pornographic material “every day or almost every day,” 54 percent “strongly agreed” that gay and lesbian marriage should be legal, compared with around 13 percent of those whose porn-use patterns were either monthly or less often than that. Statistical tests confirmed that porn use is a (very) significant predictor of men’s support for same-sex marriage, even after controlling for other obvious factors that might influence one’s perspective, such as political affiliation, religiosity, marital status, age, education, and sexual orientation.

The same pattern emerges for the statement, “Gay and lesbian couples do just as good a job raising children as heterosexual couples.” Only 26 percent of the lightest porn users concurred, compared to 63 percent of the heaviest consumers. It’s a linear association for men: the more porn they consume, the more they affirm this statement. More rigorous statistical tests confirmed that this association too is a very robust one.

Theoretically, the same pattern should hold when considering support for marriage in general. And it does, though not quite as distinctively. The less time spent viewing porn, the less critical men are of the institution of marriage. Forty-nine (49) percent of the lightest porn users “strongly disagreed” with a statement suggesting that “marriage is an outdated institution” (and an additional 26 percent simply “disagreed” with it), compared with 14 percent of the heaviest porn users.

Why?

Porn also undermines the concept that in the act of sexual intercourse, we share our “body and whole self … permanently and exclusively.” On the contrary, it reinforces the idea that people can share their bodies but not their inmost selves, and that they can do so temporarily and (definitely) not exclusively without harm.

Moreover, the web’s most popular pornographic sites do little to discriminate one sex act—or category of such—from another. Gazers are treated to a veritable fire-hose dousing of sex-act diversity. (These are not your grandfather’s Playboy.) So, add to the sharing of bodies temporarily and nonexclusively a significant dose of alternative forms of sexual activity—positions, roles, genders, and numbers—and that’s basically where porn presses its consumers today: away from sex as having anything approaching a “marital meaning” or structure of the sort outlined in the article cited above

Source: See “Porn Use and Supporting Same-Sex Marriage”  by Mark Regnerus, The Witherspoon Institute: Public Discourse 20th December 2012. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/12/7048/

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Homosexuality, Marriage, Pornography Tagged With: same-sex marriage

‘King of Porn’ unmasked

December 22, 2012 by SPCS Leave a Comment

He has been dubbed the “King of Porn”. Last week his identity was laid bare, as reported in the NZ Herald.  The “chubby, pale-faced” business entrepreneur involved in computer software and the marketing of porn, was arrested on charges of widespread and persistent tax evasion.

See: The New Zealand Herald. Saturday 22 December 2012.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10855665

 

 

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Enforcement, Pornography

The Clear Agenda of Same-Sex “Marriage” (SSM) Lobbyists

December 20, 2012 by SPCS Leave a Comment

The push for the State sanctioning (legalisation) of same-sex “marriage” (SSM) has followed on from the passing of the Homosexual Law Reform Act on 9 July 1986.

The Homosexual Law Reform Act was introduced to the New Zealand parliament by Labour MP Fran Wilde in 1985. It legalised consensual sex between men aged 16 and older. It removed the provisions of the Crimes Act 1961 that criminalised this behaviour.

The case – Quilter v Attorney-General [1998] had its origin in early 1996 when three female couples (lesbians) in long-term relationships were denied marriage licences by the Registrar-General because marriage under the common law was between one man and one woman. The High Court decision rejecting the lesbians’ case of alleged discrimination and inequality, was appealed to the Court of Appeal (then New Zealand’s highest court) in December 1997. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court ruling.

Dissatisfied with this the SSM lobbyists pursued their grievances of alleged “discrimination” to the United Nations. On 30 November 1998, two couples involved in Quilter case took their case to the U.N. Human Rights Committee, claiming that the country’s ban on same-sex marriage violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Committee rejected it on 17 July 2002.

Again dissatisfied, SSM lobbyists withdrew from all Court action to pursue their goals of SSM “rights” under a different name (“civil union”) via legislative change. On 9 December 2004 Parliament passed the Civil Union Bill, establishing civil unions for same-sex and opposite-sex couples. The Civil Union Act came into effect on 26 April 2005 and the vast majority of the homosexual community applauded it for removing alleged “discrimination” and “inequality”.

However, soon they became dissatisfied with Civil Unions with SSM lobbyists alleging that they were still discriminated against because they could still not obtain a marriage licence. Their clear agenda was to achieve SSM by using parliament to introduce into the Marriage Act a definition of marriage that did not limit it to a male-female union but widened it to include same-sex unions.

In August 2012, Louisa Wall – an openly lesbian Labour MP – spoke in parliament in support of her private member’s bill at First Reading – The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill –  currently being considered by the Government Administration Committee.  It removes all gender specific language from Schedule 2 (“Forbidden Marriages”) of the Marriage Act, but retains the terms “legal wife” and “legal husband” in s. 31 dealing with marriage vows taken before a marriage celebrant. It is due to be reported back to parliament from the committee on 28 February 2013.

SUMMARY: The Clear Agenda of the Homosexual SSM Lobbyists:      

(What’s Next? !)

First: To ensure that same-sex couples can legally obtain a marriage licence and that homosexual men and lesbian women in such relationships can legally refer to their same-sex partner  by the appellation “legal husband” and “legal wife”.

Second: Once parliament has legally sanctioned the oxymoron “same-sex marriage” and legally validated these oxymoronic appelations, such as “legal wife” – to apply to SSM; SSM Lobbyists believe they will have the same “rights” as a heterosexual couples to jointly adopt children because the new law will treat them as “spouses”. At present The Adoption Act 1955 only allows for an adoption order to be applied for by “2 spouses jointly in respect of a child” or “by the mother or father of the child, either alone or jointly with his or her spouse”. In effect the SSM Lobby want to short-circuit due process (proper consideration of changes to Adoption Laws and the rights of adopted children to have a father (male) and mother (female)). 

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Civil Unions, Homosexuality, Political Advocacy Tagged With: definition of marriage, Marriage Act, Marriage Amendment Act, Quilter v Attorney-General, same-sex marriage, SSM, SSM Lobby

What is Marriage?

December 17, 2012 by SPCS 1 Comment

Here is a defence of man-woman marriage combining the precision of scientists with the clarity of good journalists makes for essential reading ……

Here is a robust intellectual defence of the traditional view of marriage by a group of authors which includes Princeton law professor Robert P George – a welcome addition to the debate. Labelled by the New York Times as “America’s most influential conservative Christian thinker”, George, a convert from the ranks of the Democrats, is responsible for the interdenominational manifesto The Manhattan Declaration signed by a number of Christian leaders in support of traditional marriage, sanctity of life and religious liberty. Sherif Girgis is a Ph.D. student in philosophy at Princeton and a J.D. candidate at Yale Law School. Ryan T. Anderson, who is William E. Simon Fellow at the Heritage Foundation and editor ofthe Witherspoon Institute’s journal Public Discourse, is a Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude graduate of Princeton University and a Ph.D. candidate in political philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. Altogether a formidable team.

In 2010 they published a controversial article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, putting forward a philosophical defence for the conjugal view of marriage. It gained many responses from all sides of the debate and has proved so successful that they have expanded it into a book to further flesh out their claims and answer their opponents.

To read the full article go to:

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/what_is_marriage

 

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Marriage Tagged With: What is Marriage?

Securities Commissioner told of Ross Asset Management Ponzi scheme concerns but took no action

December 13, 2012 by SPCS Leave a Comment

The Securities Commission appears to have been warned about suspected Ponzi scheme operator David Ross three years ago, but took no action. [David Ross was sole director of failed Ross Asset Management Ltd]

An email obtained through the Official Information Act shows Securities Commissioner Annabel Cotton was told of concerns about Ross in September 2009.

At the time, Ms Cotton had a special role as commissioner for financial advisers, responsible for developing a code of conduct for the financial advisory industry.

The email reads:

“Has anyone every [sic] looked into the activities of David Ross funds management? He doesn’t ad [sic] up to me and I could explain why verbally if you wished.”

The name of the sender was redacted from the OIA document, although it is understood the sender was a professional investor.

Ms Cotton said she had forwarded the email from her personal address to her Securities Commission address so that she could discuss it with commission staff when she was next in the office, “and to the best of my knowledge that’s what I would have done”.

“What happened from there I don’t know. I would have left it with a senior staff to work things from there and decide what to do.”

The Dominion Post has learnt of another individual who claimed he contacted Ms Cotton verbally about Ross, before September 2009.

The person, who asked not to be named, said he was told the commission was too busy to look into his concerns.

“I remember Annabel’s words exactly,” he said. “[She said] ‘I hope you’re not right’.”

Ms Cotton, who owns investor relations consultancy Merlin, said she had no recollection of the conversation.

The Financial Markets Authority, successor to the Securities Commission, licensed Ross as an authorised financial adviser in July last year.

Ross’s Wellington offices were raided by the FMA on October 31 after it received client complaints on October 25.

Receivers appointed to Ross companies by the High Court have found assets totalling $11.5 million, a significant shortfall on client accounts purporting to be worth $449.6m.

The Serious Fraud Office is investigating.

Source:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/8072464/Commissioner-told-of-Ponzi-scheme-concerns

The Dominion Post, Thursday, December 13, 2012, p. A3

Further Reading:

Ross Asset Investors may face ‘gruesome legal fight’

The National Business Review, Tuesday 4 December, 2012

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/ross-asset-investors-face-gruesome-legal-fight-if-ponzi-scheme-shown-bd-133420

 

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Crime, Enforcement Tagged With: David Ross, Ponzi scheme, Ross Asset Management, Securities Commission, Serious Fraud Office

« 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.