Lecture by funny-man Dan Wallace, PhD.
A group is calling for the Government to consider legalising multi-partner marriages.
The group set up a Facebook page just before the Marriage Amendment Bill passed through Parliament last week, legalising gay marriage.
A statement on the page described multi-partner – or polyamorous – marriage as “responsible, adult, committed non-monogamy,” and said all committed loving relationships between adults regardless of number should be respected and given legal acknowledgement.
“Some Australian Greens have now got a lobby group going, there are several MPs around the world coming out as poly and poly-friendly and it seems the time is right to at least bring it to the attention of the New Zealand public and New Zealand parliament,” the group said.
“This will be a long-term project but with the rest of the world getting on the bandwagon legal multiple partner marriages/unions may one day be accepted.”
The “slippery slope” towards legalising polygamy, polyamory or incestuous relationships has often been an argument raised by opponents of the Marriage Amendment Bill.
From Scoop 22-04-2013:
Charter Schools Give Opportunities to Teach Discrimination
Monday, 22 April 2013, 2:55 pm
Press Release: New Zealand Principals’ Federation
Let’s review their press release.
Charter Schools Will Provide Opportunities to Teach Discrimination
The ACT party’s proposed charter schools will open the door to religious groups to teach Kiwi kids discriminatory practices, including that same sex marriage is wrong.
It is hard to believe just how daft this piece of writing is. Does Mr. Harding, president of the New Zealand Principals’ Federation, not realise that the law practices discrimination ALL THE TIME. That is exactly what the law is intended to do.
It may surprise Mr. Harding, but the new [marriage] law will also discriminate — against Christians and Muslims and many others. Yes, it will discriminate in just the same way traffic laws discriminate against people who drive on the wrong side of the road. Yes, the new law will discriminate against those who don’t agree with same sex marriage, and it will also discriminate against polygamists and children, neither of whom have a lawful right to marry whomever they choose.
I dare say that New Zealand school principals also practice discrimination. Yes, I’ll bet some cold cash that they discriminate against betting at school. I bet they also discriminate against students who cheat in exams, beat up other students, or swear at school principals.
‘Just as New Zealanders are celebrating the latest legislation change that brings an end to discrimination against same-sex couples having the right to be legally married, we are opening up a whole new opportunity for discriminatory practices to flourish,’ says President of the New Zealand Principals’ Federation, Philip Harding.
What exactly does Mr. Harding mean by “Just as New Zealanders are celebrating…”? Does not know that New Zealanders are NOT overwhelmingly in favour of this new law. Did he fail to educate himself with the 17,000 vote TV3 poll in which 78% of people were OPPOSED to the bill. Is Mr. Harding really this ill-informed? Was this Press Release reviewed by others in his organisation, and if so, are the rest of his staff likewise uneducated in this matter?
There would be nothing to stop any group setting up a charter school and teaching Kiwi kids that discriminatory practices are to be valued and that evolutionary theories of science are wrong.
Notice how Mr. Harding mixes his morality with evolutionary theory. This guy really needs to listen to Kim Hill’s interview from last Saturday morning with Professor John Lennox from Oxford University. Like Kim Hill, Mr. Harding just does not get it. Perhaps I should quote from Professor Richard Dawkins or Professor Will Provine. Yes, these darwinist atheists agree with each other that if darwinism is true then there is at rock bottom no right, no wrong, just matter in motion. Yes, free will is an illusion and the wrongness of rape is a social construct.
Notice the irony, and the lack of thinking. Mr. Harding wants to prescribe his morality on 78% of New Zealanders, yet at the same time wants to cuddle up to a theory that removes any basis for logically prescribing any objective morality. And if Mr. Harding’s moral values are “no right, no wrong…” then why should anyone really care what he thinks anyway? Oh, that’s right, it’s not about right and wrong — it’s really about power. Yes, the power of Mr. Harding to force his spaghetti bowl morality upon the rest of us.
As for evolutionary theory, perhaps Mr. Harding would care to do what Richard Dawkins (cowardly — not my word, see this link) has failed to do, and step up and debate his beloved theory.
‘Interest in charter schools from religious groups has been significant,’ said Harding, ‘and the religious beliefs they follow are inconsistent with the values of wider New Zealand society,’ he said.
The significant interest Mr Harding refers to is presumably PRIOR to this latest law being passed, in which case what exactly is his point? And of course we really have no idea what ‘significant’ means because Mr. Harding failed to educate us sufficiently by defining “significant” and providing a numerical figure.
‘There has never been any evidence that the New Zealand tax payer is crying out for another choice of school and no political party, including John Banks’ ACT party, promoted such policy during the last election campaign,’ said Harding.
This is self refuting and illogical. In the previous paragraph Mr. Harding says that “interest… has been significant” and only one paragraph later he is claiming the opposite: “There has never been any evidence that the New Zealand taxpayer is crying out…”.
Seriously, if this what the sort of buffoonery that is coming from the leadership of New Zealand schools, then I hope every child moves to “another choice of school”. And shame on Mr. Harding for tarring the New Zealand Principals’ Foundation with his poorly reasoned politics and ‘morality’.
Here at the Guardian (3,868 comments and counting)
A long overdue debate breaks out about whether rational atheism is being used as a cover for Islamophobia and US militarism
Two columns have been published in the past week harshly criticizing the so-called “New Atheists” such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens: this one by Nathan Lean in Salon, and this one by Murtaza Hussain in Al Jazeera. The crux of those columns is that these advocates have increasingly embraced a toxic form of anti-Muslim bigotry masquerading as rational atheism. Yesterday, I posted a tweet to Hussain’s article without comment except to highlight what I called a “very revealing quote” flagged by Hussain, one in which Harris opined that “the people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.”
Shortly after posting the tweet, I received an angry email from Harris, who claimed that Hussain’s column was “garbage”, and he eventually said the same thing about Lean’s column in Salon. That then led to a somewhat lengthy email exchange with Harris in which I did not attempt to defend every claim in those columns from his attacks because I didn’t make those claims: the authors of those columns can defend themselves perfectly well. If Harris had problems with what those columns claim, he should go take it up with them.
Wow, this got really heated, and the personal correspondence between Sam Harris and Glenn Greenwald was also posted. Someone should mention to the neo-atheists that their beloved secular Europe is falling to Islam in large part because secular atheistic Europeans are failing to breed fast enough. Survival of the fittest anyone? Someone should also mention to Harris that he spends too much time moralising, and that he should grow up and be a real atheist and speak honestly as Will Provine does (2 minute video).
That said, what I did say in my emails with Harris – and what I unequivocally affirm again now – is not that Harris is a “racist”, but rather that he and others like him spout and promote Islamophobia under the guise of rational atheism. I’ve long believed this to be true and am glad it is finally being dragged out into open debate. These specific atheism advocates have come to acquire significant influence, often for the good. But it is past time that the darker aspects of their worldview receive attention.
Yes, Harris and his mates attack Christians with lines like “science flies rockets to the moon while religion flies planes into buildings” which is of course a veiled attack against Islam, while also being an attack against logic, akin to saying that all atheists are like the darwinist Adolph Hitler.
I like (and respect — yes seriously) honest atheists.
In the Netherlands, the first country in the world to introduce “gay” ‘marriage’ on 1 April 2001, a Survey by Rutgers World Population Foundation, a centre of expertise on sexual and reproductive health and rights, suggests that about 500,000 people call themselves “gay”. Yet from 1 April 2001 to 2005, only 3% of them married.
So at about 2% of the population, that makes about 3% of 2% which is 0.06%. For New Zealand’s population of 4 million, we should expect (all other things being equal) only 2,400 “gay” marriages in this country. Evidently there are other reasons why the law was changed, but you will have to figure those out.
I think they mean “God”, not “god” but hey, Lennox only beat up Dawkins twice. Congrats to Mark Cubey and Kim Hill for having Professor Lennox on their show.
8:15 John Lennox
John Carson Lennox is a British mathematician and philosopher of science who is Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science at Green Templeton College, Oxford University. He is the author of a number of books, including and God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? (Lion Books, ISBN: 978-0-82547-912-0) and Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target (Lion Books, ISBN: 978-0745953229).
SHOCK – TV3 Campbell Live ‘Marriage-Equality bill’ poll: 78% opposed to bill – 22% support (17,000 responses)
To hell with democracy, representation of the people, fairness. Welcome to dictatorial state enforced skulbuggery.
Last night (17 April) TV3 Campbell Live ran a poll on Louisa WAll’s same-sex ‘marriage’ bill (the so-called ‘Marriage-Equality bill) and there were “nearly 17,000″ respondents (by text) to the question: “Do you support the ‘Marriage-Equality bill’?” – YES or NO.
TV3 host John Campbell announced the results at the end of the programme: 78% opposed to bill (“NO”) and only 22% supported it (“YES”). Campbell stated that he believed this was the second largest number of responses ever received to a TV3 poll.
In Parliament last night the Bill was supported at its Third Reading by a majority of MPs: 77 in favour: 43 opposed. This result is a total reversal of the TV3 poll results and shows that opponents of the bill are right in demanding a referendum on this issue.
Why has there been a total media blackout on this highly significant TV3 poll result that strongly suggest that the majority of MPs have misjudged the strength public opinion against this bill.
Forces pushing for genderless marriage are a wellspring of fallacies and unanswered questions about the consequences. Let’s explore some of them.
1. What’s love got to do with it?
Nothing. Romanticizing this debate by claiming that any two people in love should have a civil right to civil marriage is a foolish distraction. Neither judges nor legislators have any business discussing “affection” as a factor in defining civil marriage. Clergy who bless marriages have a legitimate and separate role in discerning the internal dynamics of couples. But not the state.
2. What is the state’s interest in marriage?
“…So why not fathers marrying sons and moms marrying daughters? Is it because of the ‘ick’ factor? Why should that preclude it? If life comes down to who you love and who loves you back, if a father and son love each other so much they want to get married, there is little moral difference between two people of the same sex getting married who are not related and want to be and two people of the same sex who already are related becoming closer…”
Yup. Question is, will Mormons or Muslims be the first to fight the discrimination in the courts?
From Princeton University: