New Zealand lawmakers have proposed a bill in support of same-sex marriage. In the second of three votes needed to pass the measure, it passed 77-44. The final vote is scheduled to take place in mid-April.
Does this mean Bilbo Baggins might marry Gandalf in The Hobbit part 2?
UPDATE: The bill passed 77-44 on April 17. New Zealand has become the 13th nation to legalize same-sex marriage.
Thinking to Believe 
April 10, 2013 at 6:24 am
“Does this mean Bilbo Baggins might marry Gandalf in The Hobbit part 2?”
If they loved each other, sure.
And if that was in the original story.
LikeLike
April 10, 2013 at 7:52 am
Let Marriage go by the wayside to whomever wants to pursue it and start a new way forward; let’s call it the “Wo-Mantic Union”, thus designating the man- woman relationship as a prerequisite; mind you, these days one cannot be sure exactly what gender people appear to be anymore since sex change has become normality that manipulates the body gender missed by nature to reflect the brain gender and righting a natural physical wrong.
I personally believe the time has come to abolish Marriage as an Institution anyway whose religious roots have reaped ridicule enough upon its oft thought divine status when in fact it was and still is a societal sex control mechanism.
Let’s start a modern union and shed tradition. Let traditional marriage go to whomever wants it. One need not want to join a new Union and if you do not, then do not. But let human rights BE Human Rights and not what some people demand to be only rights for certain humans BUT human rights that are for all humans.
Re-Classify Unions for Modernity.
I find that my wife and I are quite happy in our “Wo-Mantic Union”. It is and we are, very “wo-mantic”; and,
we never worry about what anybody says anymore; we are adults capable of making up our own adult minds.
We’re not kids following Parental Guides or Patriarchal Dominion any longer.
We are free from the tyranny of other human dictates.
LikeLike
April 11, 2013 at 5:03 am
Jason,
You may have to start saying which “western” countries now oppose same-sex marriage at this rate.
LikeLike
April 11, 2013 at 9:30 am
scottspeig:
SO UNLIKE CHRIST-LIKE.
Cleft lip (cheiloschisis) and cleft palate (palatoschisis), which can also occur together as cleft lip and palate, are variations of a type of clefting congenital deformity caused by abnormal facial development during gestation.
Substituting the term homosexuality for the clefting example; otherwise, known as “same sex” attraction, I submit that some bodies develop genitalia anomalies in gestation separately and differently from brain gender development (rel:devilopment) in the same way as the cleft anomaly occurs in the human population in both sexes.
I further submit that a surgical operation to correct the gestation anomaly that reverses the physical genitalia anomaly (sex change) to conform with the brain gender (the real determinant gender seat) is every bit as valid and should be every bit as acceptable as an operation to repair the cleft anomaly.
Furthermore I submit that the Brain/Body anomaly while as unseemly perhaps as the cleft lip anomaly may be to the majority of society, is not an abomination by any means; certainly, not to those who understand this as an anomaly of biological function.
In addition this anomaly occurs in the general population from normal heterosexual activity more than general society cares to admit to, especially religious societies that have readily adopted, approved “The Word” and admonish others because of ancient religious tradition, tradition formulated by societies that did not understand gestation deficiencies any more than they understood the so called “demonic possession” (of epileptics) as a function of neurology anomalies.
Whether the gender anomaly is corrected by physical surgery or not is not the issue here entirely however; the main issue is that society in general and religious sects in particular must recognize the anomaly for what it is and accept it with understanding, especially in light of the preponderance of evidence that many parishioners, priests and preachers in all walks of religion are themselves afflicted by this anomaly and therefore (treating others as they want to be themselves treated) should be tolerant of their fellow humans out of compassion if not outright shame for ostracizing the LGBT Community amid the LGBT’s many pleas (prayers) to be accepted as normal human beings freckles and all.
Having a gender anomaly does not inevitably lead to a psychosocial problem. However, adolescents with gender anomalies are at an elevated risk for developing psychosocial problems especially those relating to self-concept, peer relationships and appearance. A gender anomaly may impact an individual’s self-esteem, social skills and behavior and contribute to the Closet Syndrome by the hate culture most responsible for alienating them, Religion.
Sub Title: A fierce polemic against the inequalities in our society.
LikeLike
April 11, 2013 at 9:47 am
Leo,
I don’t think homosexuals choose their same-sex attraction (SSA) anymore than people with cleft palate chose to have a cleft palate. So I agree that we should be compassionate toward people who experience SSA. But this does not mean we have to think SSA is normal or good, or that acting on those desires is normal or good. Indeed, those who experience adult-child attraction did not choose that either, but no one thinks that it is normal or good to act on those desires. Just because a desire comes natural to someone (i.e. they did not choose it) tells us nothing about whether the desire, or the behavior necessary to fulfill that desire, is normal or good. So while we should exercise compassion toward such individuals, compassion does not equate to approval of their behavior (if they choose to act on their desires).
But all of this is beside the point because the debate over same-sex marriage has no logical connection to the debate over the morality of homosex. One could fully accept that homosex is good, and yet still deny the validity of same-sex marriage based on what marriage is. If the institution of marriage is a natural institution, determined by the sexual union of two complementary sexes that are oriented toward procreation, then by definition there can be no such thing as same-sex marriage (anymore than there can be male hysterectomies). This post is not an attempt to defend this understanding of marriage, so I’m not going to go there now. My point is simply that you need to stop conflating the morality of homosexuality with the issue of same-sex marriage. They are unrelated.
Jason
LikeLike
April 11, 2013 at 10:45 am
Jason:
I appreciate your communications.
As I mentioned in previous posts, gender is not determined in the human by the genitalia between his legs but by the gender brain in his head; that’s where gender determinant is expressed; genitalia is merely the mechanical mechanism through which the expression is manifested exactly like the ear is the mechanical process where the ear offers the expressway to where the hearing takes place, in the brain.
For example: If a man’s body has a male’s genitalia but the man body’s gender has a female gender and is attracted to another man, that is a heterosexual attraction even though you believe it is a homosexual attraction, it is not. So if that man with male genitalia and a female brain is attracted to a man with male genitalia and a male brain it will not work because the man with the male brain will not accept the other man with male genitalia…that way, for then it would be truly a homosexual attraction but when the male with the female brain sees a man and is attracted, and THAT man has a similar female brain, that works because they are both attracted heterosexually even though both men have a female brain. In this case both female brains are attracted to the male’s physical gender which is the expressway for sexual attraction in the brain.
I did not know this but found out sometime ago from a friend who had close contact with gays in her extended family, that, in what we think of as a homosexual (Gay) relationship, one member assumes the role of female behaviour and the other assumes the role of male behaviour and this role playing is heterosexual in nature. I had always assumed that two men were in a homosexual union and like yourself saw only the outside physical appearance without understand the brain gender function.
My position is not one that defends homosex behaviour, no; I do not agree with it nor have I ever practiced it but since learning the hetero nature of these relationships and brain gender, that knowledge changed my attitude. Now, I would never suggest to any gay person that their (apparent) gay relationship is not as genuine with the tools they are dealt, as my relationship with the tools I’ve been dealt and so on the basis of that understanding I believe the LGBT community has every right to the same human rights as everyone else, including marriage because love, tenderness, compassion, charity, kindness, consideration, sorrow, pain, joy and happiness is not in your cleft or between your legs but in your brain and if there is one thing I am certain of, is that where those emotes are, is the same place that Jesus said the Kingdom was (within you)and where the Father of that Kingdom resides (within you) and that same place, the brain, is where human dignity lives.
That Jason is my position.
LikeLike
April 12, 2013 at 10:28 pm
“I believe the LGBT community has every right to the same human rights as everyone else, including marriage because love, tenderness, compassion, charity, kindness, consideration, sorrow, pain, joy and happiness…”
Most people regardless of position on marriage believe the LGBT community should have the same human rights as everyone else. Clearly, they are human. But marriage is not a human right. And let’s be clear here: a position against same-sex marriage DOES NOT mean preventing same-sex relationships or same-sex couples from experiencing love together! Such appeals to emotion fall flat when we are talking about whether a government will formally declare/endorse one’s personal relationship in a certain way or not. Debating gender vs sexual attraction doesn’t really enter into it either, nor particularly address Jason’s last points for that matter. But it is an interesting aside nonetheless.
LikeLike
April 12, 2013 at 10:32 pm
@NotAScientist
“If they loved each other, sure.”
Why that stipulation?
LikeLike
April 12, 2013 at 11:09 pm
David:
“But marriage is not a human right.”
Well what kind of right is it that you should deny marriage to a certain segment of society?
And who wants to deny them that right if it is a right, if it’s just another Boy’s Club then why discriminate against a large segment of the population and I mean a really large segment of the population.
Is it not purely a religious reason that you want to deny them and why? Because the patriarchs from the stone age knew nothing about the human makeup? Who knew nothing about epilepsy and so practiced exorcism for demonic possession; is that the ancient tradition you would cling to; and, if it has nothing to do with love, tenderness, then what does it have to do with?
And what is so precious about the stone age tradition of marriage that you should feel the need, the urge, to keep it protected. Would you feel a lessor human being?; what is marriage after all to you that would alienate certain others from participating, methinks that you think the Government is not suppose to include declarations for the LGBT Community when the Government is the People and the LGBT community are people, maybe not as high and righteous as yourself but then that is the nature of religion isn’t it?
Religion is more than just a belief isn’t it, religion wants to impose a universal morality which is why it has always attracted the kind of person who thinks other people’s private lives are their business. And giving respect to this mentality is exactly what’s got us into the mess that we’re in.
The Government must govern like the bible says God governs; he makes the rain fall on the righteous and the unrighteous alike, he makes the sun to shine on every human and does not keep it apart from anybody.
You David are on the wrong side of history, on the wrong side of righteousness and on the wrong side of Good..
LikeLike
April 12, 2013 at 11:44 pm
There is only one true way to stop squabbling over same-sex, opposite-sex marriage and one I fully agree with. Eliminate marriage altogether! Marriage,simply put, is an Institution whose time of demise has arrived; marriage is no longer relevant in secular society. Marriage is supported only by Religion (whose time to die has also arrived) and Businesses like DeBeers, Barbie Dolls, the Fashion Industry and Wedding Planners. Diamonds, Decor and Demons for Dollars.
Sexuality has always been the centre of control in every society since the year dot and today’s society is no different and cannot keep their hands off needing to cite the chronological stroke of midnight to determine the sexual reproductive viability as far as age determination is concerned.
Sexuality on the other hand was always so offensive to so many people that the only way for it to be allowed whatsoever was to find a way to legitimize sex. Thus was Marriage invented and later as secularism evolved, the Marriage License was invented by government as to take come control of the sexuality issue and make some tax dollars at the same time; why let the Church rake in all the money available in the Marriage Façade of Religion?
LikeLike
April 13, 2013 at 7:39 am
David:
“Why that stipulation?”
Because the best reason to get married is if you’re in love.
LikeLike
April 13, 2013 at 7:57 am
NotAScientist:
Actually the only reason to get married since the dawn of time was to legitimize sex without which the woman was labeled a harlot and her children bastards.
Marriage gave sex a respect it could not have and does not have today without the “married” tag although secularism and common sense is finally supplanting religious insanity for control of the human experience, thank God (if there was one).
Marriage turns sexual desire into “love” without marriage it is merely in its raw state: “Lust”!
And I am unanimous in that.
LikeLike
April 13, 2013 at 8:14 am
“Actually the only reason to get married since the dawn of time”
So what?
The best reason to get married, I maintain, is if you happen to be in love.
LikeLike
April 13, 2013 at 8:18 am
NotAScientist.
Yes of course I understand your position.
Lust and Love is like Brown Sugar and White Sugar.
Brown sugar is raw and unrefined but turns automatically into the acceptable “White”, “refined” sweetness renamed as “Love” with a Marriage Ceremony & Document.
LikeLike
April 13, 2013 at 8:28 am
NotAScientist.
You are taking the traditional view of niceties about marriage and I can understand why, it’s easier that way and not nearly as offensive, if offensive at all in societal terms and society basically agrees with that position.
But think of it this way. If you happen to be in Lust and fulfill the desire of your design before marriage it is fornication; after marriage, it is Love. You see, it’s only love when it is acceptable to the society at large and the only way fornication was acceptable and differentiated between lust and love was if you got married.
So what have we learned today?
Lust fulfilled is fornication without marriage; NOT OKAY.
Love achieved is lust fulfilled WITH marriage. YES OKAY.
PSYCH 101…..SO SIMPLE but you need to shed your sensitivities to see it.
LikeLike
April 13, 2013 at 8:51 am
The first thing for your reality BRAIN to succeed is to severe your cranium from the supernaturalism of religious indoctrination and traditionalism of cultural (religious) influence.
Reversing Churchism DOGMA for AMGOD Secularism is not easy but you can do it.
Read the “Woe To you Clergy” indictment of Jesus in Matthew 23 and get a reality check from him about the way the Church controlled the masses since the crack of dawn.
Otherwise your neurons will continue to misfire all the way to the BLANK, I’m afraid. AKA the Blind Ditch.
LikeLike
April 13, 2013 at 8:56 am
Um…dude…I’m an atheist who is pro gay marriage.
And if two men, or two women, want to get married then they should be allowed to.
LikeLike
April 13, 2013 at 5:29 pm
NotAScientist:
Hey that’s great. I am an atheist too, like Jesus, out of the closet so to speak, without fear of being killed for blasphemy these days although I would never say that in a Muslim country but then there’s no fear of that either since the chances of me visiting a Muslim country is like, slim to none.
And I am pro human.
Now I didn’t mean to suggest you were one of the religiously insane as I was speaking in the third person even though I used the pronoun “you”, but not necessarily meaning you per se, unless the shoe fit of course.
Most posts I have received however were not from atheists and I have been chastised for even commenting on this religious blog and advised to go elsewhere but I think the religious community needs to be challenged to defend why they , the creature, feel compelled to defend their great myth Creator as well as their belief system.
No offense intended.
LikeLike
April 14, 2013 at 10:53 am
“Most posts I have received however were not from atheists and I have been chastised for even commenting on this religious blog and advised to go elsewhere”
Sigh… Assuming you are referring to my comment the other day, Leo, no you were not being chastized for “even commenting” and I only advised you to take longwinded diversions of thought elsewhere. Honestly, Leo, I don’t know how you expect people to take you seriously when you respond to even the simplest of comments by waxing rhetorical in grand essays on religion, humanity and the universe, typically diverting the topic, not actually responding to some or most of the post you were replying to, and introducing often baffling/bizarre new assertions or opinions that I can only assume are intended to serve as red herrings or to bait the conversion to your self-gratifying whim. And you repeat the same things on various blog posts, sometimes copy-and-paste verbatim.
But what do I know, I’m on the “wrong side of good and righteousness” lol. Oy vey… I’ll leave you to your thoughts from now on. I’ll stick to coherent and succinct argumentation.
LikeLike
April 14, 2013 at 11:16 am
DAvid:
……on the “wrong side of good and righteousness”
From the comments this reply was for I inferred(you implied) that you were against marriage for people who looked like the same gender physically, woman/woman, man/man.
I usually write cosmic comments for the bigger picture; simply saying one is against something or for something is useless without explaining why and while my rambling might bore you that’s just the nature of AMGOD I’m afraid.
LikeLike