NZ Centre for Political Research

Stuart's story about the man and the wedding of his daughter shows how damaging interference from a government can be. It is hard enough for families to get along with each other because of the complexities of human nature, but once the state gets involved with its "jack boot" approach, it can lead to alienation on a massive scale.

I believe that reform in this area is urgent as it should not be the role of the state to alienate a child from their parents. It is just like the youth benefit for youngsters who aren't getting along with their parents - once they get it they are not allowed to even talk to their parents for fear of losing the benefit. Talk about a wedge being driven between them!

Here is a message I have just received from Stuart. It is a very sad commentary on the consequences of bad family law and one of the reasons that I fought so hard as an MP to introduce better laws that would have helped to prevent the warfare between separating parents:

Good point, Christine at stopping the fools and idiots from representing us but first as a first line of defence we need to make sure the public are well informed.

I have just read the info on global warming and have checked out the climate change coalition website and it is great. This whole issue is filled with scaremongering and it is reassuring to see that it is being properly challenged by the coalition scientists.

If you haven't checked it out it is worth a look on:

http://www.climatescience.org.nz

Maybe we should find out what Ireland has in its Constitution, to work out what we could put in ours. I think it's become obvious recently that we need some kind of 'protection' from fools and idiots who think they represent us.

The first thing that should go is the Conscience Vote. How can one person who has never met me, or asked me my opinion, be allowed to cast a vote that may have resounding effects on my life? A lot of the MP's who were given the privilege of a conscience vote weren't elected to Parliament - they got in through the back door. So delete Conscience Vote and add Binding Referendum with mandatory voting.

But what I really wanted to share with everyone, was the power of email these days. Email petitions have become the latest fashion, and apparently they are hugely effective. I received an unsolicited request from the NZ Health Trust, to email my MP and object to something about off-shore (Australian) regulation of our health products. I have now received a follow-up Newsletter informing me that the response was so enormous that within a few hours Parliament's server had crashed, and some MP's were complaining about the number of emails they were getting. The upshot is that apparently the proposal is now being modified.

So the moral of the story is, we have the power to change things from the comfort of our study or wherever your computer is. We have to use it.

If you want to practise, please read through my "P and NZ Society" Topic and then tell your MP how unsatisfactory the Govt's Health Policy is in regard to advice on drugs (ADANZ brochure, "P, it's your call).
Mr Anderton would be a good one to start with, being the Minister in charge of Drug Policy. Then Steve Maharey, who believes in putting boundaries in, except when it comes to drug-taking. You can read their responses to my emails on the "P" Topic.

And then you can email them about wanting a Constitution.
Thanks!

Roger mentions the constitution in Ireland as being a strong protection for citizens - isn't it time we had a constitution here? I think it is a great idea. The question is what sort of rights and protections we should put into one.

Any suggestions?

Roger from Ireland has sent through this comment about initiatives being driven by the the united Nations and questions their "divide and rule" motives. He makes an interesting comment about the protection offered by their constitution.

Here are his comments:

I'm afraid that I have a very conventional view on the adoption of children.

Humans have evolved in such a way that one male and one female form the family group that has as its major purpose the raising of children. Mothers and fathers both bring different strengths and qualities to that task. Either one on their own find it impossible to sustitute for the absence of the other although they clearly try to do their best.

When a baby is adopted out, it has already had a difficult start in life and as a society our responsibility is to provide that child with the most "ideal" family environement that it is possible to find. That means a stable married family with a mother and a father. Gay couples should only be considered if they are related to the child or if there is a shortage of married couples who want to adopt.

Thanks Bogor, it is indeed a delicate subject discussing people's orientation. The Darwinian angle is really a theoretical observation that from a genetic standpoint, homosexuals are not able to procreate and therefore this character trait should not survive. From an evolutionary perspective, male and female combinations work for the sharing of genetic characteristics through meiosis and from a social perspective, for teaching children male and female character traits. Add in the traditional roles of the respective sexes, suckling and providing, and you have a pretty good and workable package (ideally speaking).

Where it gets tricky is that we have modified traditional roles due to changes in society (women can hunt and gather by going to the supermarket and men can bottle feed). There is no problem here as long as we continue to recognise that men and women do bring different qualities to the relationship and hence provide a balanced unit for the upbringing of children. There is clearly anecdotal evidence of children being raised well by homosexual couples, but it is a long way from ideal and certainly in my opinion dilutes the valuable role that the sexes have in complementing each other in the family unit. It is all about trying to do the best we can for our offspring and although we all accept life is far from perfect, but we ought to aim high to start with.

It is difficult to sum up my whole view in such a short space, but these are some of the key reasons I am vehemently against allowing homosexual couples to adopt children. There are also the various disproportionate dangers that come with the homosexual lifestyle, particularly in male partnerships.

Where children are confused about their sexuality, a situation not helped I believe by the prevalence of overtly homosexual leadership in society (eg politicians who are gay rights activists), I am in full agreement that any form of bullying is wrong. I do believe that many children who are confused about their sexuality are victims more of social wrongs than biological variances (eg lesbians who hate men because some vile scumbag stepfather abused them).

How does this all relate to this political forum? I think the issue has become a pivotal one due to the disproportionately high number of State leaders who are overtly homosexual and seem to have been pushing their agenda without any form of public mandate. The potential dangers long term for a society that ratifies homosexual parenting are in my view quite significant. As a society we are already somewhat confused and insecure about gender roles, why are we trying to make it worse?
(please excuse the long winded reply!)

And as for bog sex being legalised? Helen and her ilk already have a lot to answer for.

Hi Paul

Thanks for your response. I can sit comfortably with most of what you say and where I feel uncomfortable with your view, it is the vocabulary with its limitations that makes me feel that way and I take note that you do not feel that "abnormal" is the ideal word to use, even if technically correct.

Regarding the Darwinian aspect, is it not possible under this theory that being homosexual (or many other things for that matter) is indeed a natural selection built out of the many combinations of genes that can come about at conception? I take your point that it cannot be sustainable as by his/her nature, a person who is truly homosexual will not engage in an act that will produce offspring.

I am not going to debate the issue about raising children. I do not have any of my own, and in my contacts with children. I do not engage in any discussion on this issue or any others relating to sex/sexuality. It is a matter I prefer to leave to parents. The only time I would intervene is if I saw a child being bullied or teased for being "different" I would point out to those teasing him/her that this person is different, and has a right to be respected, even if they cannot accept the differences.

A nice response Bogor and I found your arguments very reasonable. I too am saddened when the religious conservatives pick selectively from the OT to support their position. The Bible is not a book to be taken literally or else we would have a very limited gene pool, snakes could talk and God would need a day off every week. (Seems fair, I know I do.)

I am not homosexual but believe it is up to each individual what type of lifestyle they wish to follow. My issue with homosexuality is as a social construct. Your comments that children should be brought up (ideally) in a heterosexual two parent family are spot on. Men and women have clear differences for a very good reason. From a pure Darwinian perspective, homosexuality should not be sustainable and biologically it must be considered abnormal. Unfortunately this is a very hurtful word to use, but I believe it to be technically correct. Although being an ardent theist myself, I think it is more for biological/social reasons that homosexuality should not be promoted as a normal alternative, especially when it comes to bringing up children.

(There are also issues of excessive promiscuity in the homosexual community leading to further negative social impact but this is difficult to establish scientifically.)

I know a few gay people, they are wonderful. I do not understand their orientation and will somehow point out to my kids (in a very careful manner) that their behaviour is not "normal". But as far as legislating against it?? By my reasoning we would then have to also legislate against people with any type of biological abnormality and most of us have something wrong with us at least. I look forward to your comments.

Bogor, thank you for reply. I do not agree with all you say but I agree with more of your comments than I disagree with. I will not go through all the points. However it is interesting that someone who is homosexual is able to enter into a polite debate yet left wing presumably heterosexuals feel the need to resort to name calling when I oppose homosexuals adopting children.

[quote="Chuck"]I am accused of being homophobic because I object to this sort of outrage. This article is just flying a kite. Should we have to accept a couple of deviants carrying on in a public toilet when our sons or grandsons use a public toilet? I would be interested to hear our dear leaders view on this issue. If Labour gets another term I would not be surprised if we get legislation legalising this sort of sick activity.

I don't think you are being homophobic if you object to that kind of behaviour. Society does not accept it from two heteroseuxuals performing this kind of act and the same rules should apply to homosexual couples. Just as there are ways and means for heterosexual couples to meet up, so there are similar avenues for homosexual couples to meet. There are also enough places in NZ for any kind of couple to meet and socialise according to accepted forms of public behaviour without anyone have to feel threatened. Should any of these couples wish to enjoy more private moments together, then there are places available, which are private, to which they can retreat.

I do support the Civil Union legislation. I do not see it as being a threat to family. I do not support the naming of a homosexual union as marriage. Marriage has its origins as a contract to bring together a man and a woman, usually (though not necessarily always) to raise a family. Historically it was probably a fundamentally religious commitment but with the secularisation of western society today, that aspect of it has lessened in importance for many. However, the underlying rationale of what marriage is and what it is for has not.

A couple who wish to enter into a relationship that is not the nature of a marriage, which we currently call a civil union, deserve some protection of their mutual commitment and deserve certain rights that would be given to a marriage relationship, such as the right to participate in the affairs of the partner. This right needs to be formalised in some way, especially as privacy legislation today outlaws the divulgence of most information to those who are not immediate kin (and sometimes even they are excluded).

I do not support the idea of a homosexual couple being given adoption rights, just as I do not support the idea of a lesbian couple seeking a sperm donor so that one or other of them can make a baby (just as I do not support any single woman simply wanting to have a baby because it "would be nice"). I believe that the right place to bring up a child is in a family unit, with the nuclear family of a mother and father being the minimum membership of such a unit. Some cultures nurture an extended family where grandparents in particular are part of the family and have an active role in raising their grandchildren which may be an even better family unit.

I believe that homosexual people are homosexual because of something in their make-up. They do not "become" homsexual and they cannot "change" from being homosexual. Anyone who tries to convert from homosexuality is probably suppressing feelings which are a natural part of his or her makeup, or else the person is bisexual and has simply suppressed any homosexual desires he or she may have had.

As an extension of this, and this may be a hard one, if a family finds that one of its children is showing homsexual behaviour, then that child deserves support, not suppression. It may be a passing curiosity and again it may not. Families are meant to be social units where the members support and help each other.

Much reference is made to Biblical passages which purportedly condemn homosexuality, many of them Old Testament. Many of them are argued over as to what the actually mean. There are other quotations which people might do well to remember, such as:

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
[Luke 6;37]

So, Chuck, I think you are quite within your rights to be outraged by this kind of behaviour, and I do not think it should be legalised. At the same time, I believe that the decriminalisation of homosexuality was correct legislation, and I believe that the Civil Union legislation is appropriate as it gives a section of society certain protections to which they are entitled without threatening any of the the other facets of society.

Also, you are entitled to express your disapproval of homosexual behaviour if you do not like it at all, but I would hope that you would not condemn those who are homosexual and who practise their lifestyle in a way that does not impinge on the rights of others in society.

And I consider myself to be gay.

I am accused of being homophobic because I object to this sort of outrage. This article is just flying a kite. Should we have to accept a couple of deviants carrying on in a public toilet when our sons or grandsons use a public toilet? I would be interested to hear our dear leaders view on this issue. If Labour gets another term I would not be surprised if we get legislation legalising this sort of sick activity.

Opinion: Should we decriminalise bog sex?
07NOV06 - Craig Young

http://www.gaynz.com/aarticles/templates/Political.asp?articleid=1554&zoneid=3

Bog sex. It's probably the only form of gay male sex that's still semi-illegal in New Zealand, so why has it fallen off the reform agenda?

I suspect that much of it has to do with the dual focuses of the current LGBT reform agenda- HIV/AIDS and adoption reform, at least until the latter is dealt with. The former has been involved in insuring equitable access to protease inhibitors and new combination therapies for PLWAs, and dealing with new background factors that influence unsafe sex, while the latter presupposes a monogamous relationship that is stable enough to provide enough room for family responsibilities.

Added to which, bog sex is an issue of sexual choice. If one is a prissy Virgo like me, or lives in a metropolitan centre, saunas or cruise venues provide a much warmer space to snuggle within during the current extended winter climes outside. So, where does bog sex fit into this?

There are bound to be gay men who do the bogs because it adds transgressive chic to their lives, or they get turned on by the anonymity and sleaze of bog sex. Presumably, this may be why some straight clubbers and even younger lesbians do the deed themselves nowadays, so it's not just us.

With some exceptions, many provincial cities don't have established gay social venues or cruise clubs. Even when they do, some older men may not fit the criteria of 'attractiveness', or other men who have sex with men may have impaired social skills due to intellectual, development or psychiatric disability, or some might simply be too hard up to afford travel out of their provincial city or rural district. Due to these circumstances, bog sex happens. And let's not moralise about it. We turn on to different people, things or situations, so unless it involves the absence of consent, we should suspend judgementalism.

What obstacles exist to prevent bog sex? Theoretically, there are provisions within the Summary Offences Act 1981 and Crimes Act 1961 that prevent indecent or obscene displays in public places. However, is a secluded roadside rural bog a 'public place?' Is a park bog at night a 'public place?' Apparently so, although policing priorities may affect the enforcement of the above clauses of the respective statutes. If an area has moralistic elements within its police hierarchy, if it's a slow arrest period within their catchment, or if there have been public complaints, then there will be a crack down on bog sex within a particular area.

That said, it's difficult to see why there would be a complaint at night from a member of the public at a bog, or why closed door cubicle sex would be defined as indecent display if two men were at it with no bits poking out where members of the public could see them. So, should bog sex laws be enforced at all?

What about law reform prospects? In 1988, Canadian gay film maker John Greyson made Urinal, a video documentary about police apprehension of men who had sex with men in public lavatories in Ontario, Canada. Enlisting the help of several prominent historical lesbian and gay personages, he investigated the issue. Using Michel Foucault's theory of surveillance as a key method of modern social control, Greyson traced the emergence of the modern toilet and surveillance technology, and how they intersected in terms of homophobic control of public space.

In theory, it used to go something like this, insofar as post-decriminalisation bog sex surveillance went. Gay sex isn't illegal in private spaces like one's own bedroom/restricted access areas like gay saunas or cruise venues, so we'll let you have that space to yourselves. However, public lavatories are public spaces, and outside your permissible closet space, so you will face arrest if you succumb to temptation. As Greyson noted, it wasn't just arrest, either, because some right-wing local newspapers published the names of men apprehended in police bog raids, leading to some tragic instances of suicide. As a response, Ontario gay activists started Courtwatch, and funded legal interventions against fines and surveillance activities.

So, what happened to this activism? As noted above, enforcement of laws against bog sex may well be situational. If it isn't enforced, then there's no pressure for law reform in these situations. When the heat goes off, and the law isn't strongly enforced, then these campaigns lose focus. Is law reform possible? In 2003, Stonewall UK tried to decriminalise bog sex, but at least succeeded in having it spelt out in law, which doesn't bode well for future law reform efforts elsewhere.

However, policing priorities may be focused increasingly on violent crime, particularly that linked to manufacture, distribution and circulation of pure methamphetamine/crystal meth. In which case, bog sex habituees can count on uninterrupted nocturnal activities. Should we decriminalise bog sex? Should we argue that policing priorities lie elsewhere? It is a matter for debate, and perhaps one that we should have.

Recommended:
John Greyson: Urinal and Other Stories: Montreal: Art Metropole: 1993

Paul, I think we can count ourselves lucky that we do not have any of the loony left brigade on this forum. Such debates are a total waste of time. If you enjoy that sort of thing you can go on David Farrar’s blog. I do occasionally. But it accomplishes little. At the moment I am on a father’s list. The debate is getting heated because some left wing liberals are trying to shut down debate about how the current homosexual friendly is harming the traditional family. Like most lefties they can dish it out but they do not like it when it comes back.

I personal prefer a much more respectful discussion like is on this forum but I will not let not let some left wing retards shut me up with talk of defamation. I am not lawyer but as far as I know it is not liable to call a convicted paedophile a paedophile. If he read this I do not think we will get a response. Left wingers are very reluctant to part with a dollar.

Christine, I think you will just have to accept that most of us have our own issues. Will we support others on this forum it is only natural the us like you put a priority on our own issue.

Hi all,

I have been reading the comments about the Brethren. Personally I think the Labour Party is beating up on them for their own political purpose - which is to taint the National Party by association. It has worked in that the media (and forums like this) is full of it.

I do not find the actions of the Brethren objectionable; in fact I find them less concerning than the actions of the trade unions. At least membership to the Brethren is not compulsory, they do not get tax payer funding, and they do not infiltrate political parties as do the trade unions (read socialists / communists).

If the Brethren want to distribute their views prior to an election then that is entirely their business. Those who vilify the Brethren should also vilify Greenpeace - who are much more politically active and unlawful on their actions.

Perhaps those who are offended by the actions of the Brethren could tell me what they think about Greenpeace.