SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

Fidelity in marriage an issue for gay men – NZ Herald article by lecturer and author – Laurie Guy

by Leave a Comment

All you need is love. That is the theme song of pro-same-sex marriage proponents. It is the slogan of Louisa Wall, author of the same-sex marriage bill. If two gay people love each other and want to “marry”, why don’t we allow this? But is love enough?

In answering that question, we need to be aware of two other questions: what is marriage? And why is the state involved? The latter question is crucial, because the core issue is one of affirmation, not rights – rights can be dealt with by specific legislation without amending the Marriage Act and upsetting lots of people.

Apart from conveying rights, marriage provides affirmation that the state/society encourages this relationship as a good thing. A crucial question is whether gay relationships are such a good thing as to be endorsed by society as “marriage”.

We should look at the issue of social endorsement through four lenses: love, commitment, health, and society’s interests.

Let’s begin with love. What is “love”? The word covers a raft of sometimes contrary meanings, from sexual desire centred on “my” self-gratification, to heroic self-giving for another. Both heterosexual and same-sex unions may well pass (or fail) this test. The love issue does not debar same-sex marriages.

However, love alone is not enough. It can be fleeting and transient. If marriage is to be serious and not trivial, it needs longevity, buttressed by commitment and faithfulness.

What of gay commitment and faithfulness? Long-term lesbian relationships on average may well be as committed and faithful as that of an average married heterosexual couple. The problem is the gay men.

Some male gay couples are as committed and faithful as typical married heterosexuals. Survey evidence, however, indicates that these are very much a minority.

Significant data on male homosexual behaviour is available through New Zealand Medical Journal articles and the New Zealand Aids Foundation website. The Aids Foundation and the Aids Epidemiology Group at the University of Otago have conducted biennial surveys, the Auckland Gay Periodic Sex Surveys, for the past decade.

The 2010 results covered the sexual behaviour of 1527 gay men in 2008. On the commitment side, the survey indicates that the most common number of sexual partners for gay men over the previous six months was two to five. Just 38.8 per cent of those surveyed had a partner of more than six months’ standing (i.e. relationships with some level of commitment).

However, 52 per cent of these men had also had sex in that period (six months) with other partners. So despite the rhetoric of love and commitment, most male gay couples are not in a genuinely monogamous relationship. Should the meaning of “marriage” be broadened under such circumstances?

There is also the health issue. Male-to-male coupling typically has far greater health risks (because of high levels of anal sex). Both with casual and with “boyfriend” sex the percentage engaging in anal sex is over 80 per cent. Anal sex is never fully safe. Although condoms reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV/Aids) by around 85-90 per cent, risk remains (because of user misuse or product failure).

Risk is far greater without condom protection. Although 98 per cent of those surveyed knew that anal sex without a condom is very high risk for HIV transmission, 73 per cent did not use a condom at least once in the past six months (the figure for casual sex was 31 per cent).

The result is high levels of sexually transmitted infections amongst gay men. Over 60 per cent of new infectious syphilis cases are gay men. This category also has high rates of gonorrhoea and hepatitis. And 76 per cent of all new HIV diagnoses in 2000-2009 were gay men.

Can we affirm male gay relationships to the level of “marriage”, given the data on faithfulness and health? One can argue change on the basis of “me”, “my rights” and “choice”. But the debate is also about the good of society.

What society needs are stable, faithful, healthy relationships. Stable marriage has gravely weakened in the last generation. There is deep hurt and scarring of many, especially children, as a consequence.

In a direct sense gay “marriage” will not make this worse. Indirectly, however, it will, because it makes marriage, which for many is becoming vague and fuzzy, vaguer and fuzzier still. It is social engineering – with its negative aspects ignored.

We need to have a deep and wide debate, looking at all factors. The same-sex marriage debate is currently far too simplistic. The draft bill is a daft bill.

Laurie Guy is author of Worlds in Collision: The Gay Debate in New Zealand 1960-1986 (Victoria University Press, 2002). He lectures in church history at Auckland University’s school of theology, and also at Carey Baptist College.

Source: Fidelity in marriage an issue for gay men. 31 August 2012

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10830082

Note: The Objects of the Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. include: “To focus attention on the harmful nature and consequences of sexual promiscuity ……” (s. 2d of Constitution).

Marriage Redefinition Bill ‘forces same-sex marriages on church’ – legal opinion

by Leave a Comment

Church ministers with a moral objection to gay marriage would be criminalised by refusing to wed same-sex couples if a new bill becomes law, a legal opinion states.

The view of Ian Bassett on Louisa Wall’s ”marriage equality” bill, commissioned by conservative lobby group Family First, was released today. It came as a petition against the bill signed by about 50,000 people was delivered to Parliament this afternoon.

The bill is expected to pass its first reading when it is debated at Parliament tomorrow.

Bassett’s opinion suggests church ministers, marriage celebrants and even wedding photographers who withheld their services to same-sex couples on the grounds of a moral objection to gay marriage would be breaking the law if Wall’s bill passed.

It rejects the view of the Human Rights Commission, issued late last week, which said religious ministers would still be allowed to refuse to marry anyone – including same-sex couples – if Wall’s bill passed.

The Human Rights Commission statement was ”legally incorrect,” Bassett said.

“If a marriage celebrant is available to exercise his or her statutory role, he or she cannot refuse to do so by reason of any prohibited ground of discrimination (ie. such as sexual orientation),” his opinion stated.

The practical effect of the bill, if enacted, would be that church ministers with moral objections to same sex marriage would likely “withdraw totally from the statutory role of marriage celebrant; withdraw totally from providing religious marriage ceremonies to the public; continue providing religious marriage ceremonies only to members of his or her own church”.

Also as a result of the bill, a church could not refuse to rent out its premises to its members for a same-sex wedding on the grounds of their sexuality.

Church ministers with moral objections to renting out church facilities for same sex marriage functions and who wanted to ”avoid the risk of being forced to do so,” would ”likely withdraw from making their church facilities available to any member of the public, including play-groups, senior citizen or other community groups”.

”The consequences for churches and communities would be significant,” Bassett’s opinion said.

However, Wall said pastors and church ministers would not be obliged to marry anyone if her bill passed.

“They will retain all the rights that they currently have. They choose who they marry, they choose what definition of marriage they have and so my bill isn’t going to affect them in any way,” Wall said.

“We should have an open and honest debate. What I don’t like is scaremongering and the fact that ministers are saying that they will have to go to jail. That’s not right in our country and it won’t happen. I will protect the rights of our ministers to define marriage as they see fit.”

Wall said she believed there was “a solid 60” of the necessary votes to pass her bill and “a few of the undecided will hopefully join our team”.

Family First director Bob McCoskrie said MPs should reject Wall’s bill and instead ”focus on more urgent issues”.

“If marriage is redefined once, there is nothing to stop it continuing to be redefined to allow polygamy, polyamory and adult incest relationships,” McCoskrie said.

”Throughout history and in virtually all human societies, marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman.”

Bassett’s opinion said the assurances of the Human Rights Commission of any MP were of “no legal effect” unless an exemption was provided for in the legislation.

Bassett has previously represented the anti-abortion group Right to Life in some of its legal fights.

Source: Bill ‘forces same-sex marriages on church’ – lawyer. By John Hartevelt

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7563277/Bill-forces-same-sex-marriages-on-church-lawyer

Fairfax NZ News

Registered Charity’s website (www.protectmarriage.org.nz owned by Family First NZ) suffers major attack

by 1 Comment

A website opposed to a law change that would allow gay marriage has been removed from the internet, less than 12 hours after its launch.

Conservative lobby group Family First [which was registered as a charity with the Charities Commission in 2007] this morning announced the launch of the protectmarriage site after Labour MP Louisa Wall’s members bill to redefine marriage, which is not currently defined in the Marriage Act, was pulled from the ballot last week.

The bill would make it clear that two people, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity, could marry.

Family First national director Bob McCoskrie said his group had launched the website to protect the current definition of marriage, which he described as “one man, one woman”.

The website at www.protectmarriage.org.nz featured an online petition to Parliament and a tool to let people contact MPs to express their views.

But by midday the site had crashed after a large-scale denial of service attack.

The IP addresses associated with the attack were being actively blocked and by 2pm the website was up and running again.

However, by 5pm the website domain had been completely removed.

“Due to large scale Denial of Service attacks against this domain it has been decided to ensure the stability and security of our servers and network this account has been removed,” the web host [247 hosting.co.nz] said.

It was not known where the attacks were coming from, Mr McCoskrie said.

Mr McCoskrie was told it was a fairly major attack, which was aimed at the protectmarriage website but also took down quite a few of the host’s other websites.

“You always hope you can have a robust debate about ideas, and show respect for each other but when you’re trying to take out each other’s website it kind of suggests that you’re not going to get a good debate, so that’s disappointing.”

In explaining the website this morning Mr McCoskrie said politicians had been hammered recently with reasons to redefine marriage, and the website would help to balance the debate.

“Ultimately, the state – which did not invent marriage – has no authority to re-invent it,”he said.

“Equality does not mean we must redefine marriage. Same-sex couples have the option of civil unions to recognise their relationship so there is no need for redefining marriage.”

Adding to the website’s early-launch woes, US band Train is also vowing to get one of their songs removed from the website, after a YouTube link to the song Marry Me was placed on the website without them knowing.

Train was asked yesterday by a New Zealand tweeter, @Mikey_J_S, why their music video appeared on the website.

Train responded: “Didn’t know. Getting it off asap. Tnx 4 tip”.

Mr McCoskrie said he had not yet heard from Train, and the song remained on the website.

“We’re not going to do anything based on Twitter, but if they contact us and ask us to remove, we will certainly respect their wishes.”

Initial indications are that the bill has the numbers to pass. Of the 76 of Parliament’s 122 MPs who responded to a New Zealand Herald survey last week, a clear majority of 43 were in support of the bill or leaning towards backing it.

Labour leader David Shearer has said he will support the bill, and Prime Minister John Key today said he would vote in favour the bill.

Source:

Anti-gay marriage website attacked 30 July 2012

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10823280APNZ

“Say NO to ‘gay marriage’ Christians must stand firm” – call to readers of Challenge Weekly (owned by charity)

by Leave a Comment

Challenge Weekly Newspaper, owned by a legal entity that was incorporated in 1975 and registered with the Charities Commission as a charity on 30 June 2008, has devoted half of its recent front page to a report on a ‘survey’ it carried out concerning opinions on two draft bills being prepared by two MPs on ‘gay marriage’. On page 4 it has a report republished from UK Christian Today: “Pro marriage couple receive hate mail: Online bulling for traditional stance [taken on marriage].” (Challenge Weekly 9 July 2012)

The entity owning Challenge Weekly, Challenge Publishing Society Ltd , incorporated under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1908 on 30 January 1975; was granted charity status (Charity Reg. No. CC34094) under the second head of charity law – “advancement of education”. The newspaper it owns reports:

“Marriage between a man and a woman is the general consensus of the majority of people Challenge Weekly approached for comment on what appears to be growing support for “gay marriage”.

“Green Party MP Kevin Hague and Labour MP Louisa Wall both plan to draft bills supporting ‘same-sex marriage’ and a TVNZ poll showed majority support for a legal change to allow “gay” marriage. Another poll conducted in June by Herald-Digipoll, of 750 people, saw over 50 per cent of respondents in support of legalising gay marriage.

The report then goes on to reflect the views of three well-known Christian leaders on the proposed bills: former National Party MP Rev Graeme Lee (who says he is “outraged“), leader of the Conservative Party Colin Craig (who says he is “opposed“) and former MP Gordon Copeland (who says he is “concerned“).

Mr Colin Craig is reported as saying:

“This debate is purely and simply about who can use the word marriage. There are many interested parties in this debate. Traditional marriage between a man and a woman has significance culturally, historically, religiously and morally for many New Zealanders.”

[Comment: The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. (“SPCS”), a registered charity (CC20268) has as one of its objects: “To promote the benefits of lasting marriage, strong family life and wholesome personal values as the foundation for stable communities”. Naturally SPCS will be taking an active interest in the ongoing debate on the legal definition of the term “marriage”. Prime Minister John Key has called on the public to engage in constructive debate on the issue, a call made following President Barack Obama’s recent declaration of his ‘revised’ stance on the matter. It is noteworthy that Challenge Publishing Society Ltd, a registered charity, has taken such an active interest in this subject, even though it is controversial, and has pitched its call to its readership – “SAY NO”.

Reference:

Challenge Weekly, July 9, 2012 Vol 70 Iss 25. pp. 1, 4.

Form speaks out

http://www.challengeweekly.co.nz/component/content/article/39-top-stories/2375-forum-speaks-out-.html

Forum to confront ‘sex ed’

http://www.challengeweekly.co.nz/component/content/article/39-top-stories/2333-forum-to-confront-sex-ed-.html

 

Same-sex ‘marriage’ and “gay” adoption debate fuelled by polyamory advocates

by Leave a Comment

Lover of twins adds new twist to moral debate.

Belle Glasby, Marc Glasby and Dorothy Loader appeared on television talking about their ‘poly’ relationship. Marc Glasby and his two partners – wife Belle and identical twin sister Dorothy – last night poured new fuel on the growing debate over sexuality and marriage in 21st century Australia.

Their appearance on SBS Television’s Insight programme added polyamory to the already furious debate over same-sex marriage and the associated debates over gay adoption and lesbian access to IVF birth programmes.

Advocates of polyamory – intimate relationships involving three or more people – have ruffled feathers in the gay community, caused grief for the Greens, and strengthened religious determination to preserve male-female marriage as the nation’s only legal option.

The debate is being hammered out in a parliamentary inquiry into two bills aiming to legalise gay marriage and to recognise those performed abroad.

Gay marriage was a fraught issue long before polyamory’s entry. It split the Labor Party and became policy only after Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who opposes the move, struck a deal requiring a conscience vote in Parliament.

The Opposition opposes same-sex marriage, while the Greens’ policy advocates marriage for all, regardless of sexuality or gender identity.

For full story by Greg Ansley, published 30 May 2012, see:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10809419

[Read more…]