The New Zealand Parliament will now need to define what they mean by "two people who love each other" as forming the state of matrimony that needs to be recognised by the State. We would hope that love alone is not the defining factor in marriage.

Does that mean all single persons do not love, and married persons are the only persons who have love for another person? We would hope that all New Zealanders some love and respect for each other. Love alone as a factor to define marriage might be trendy but not what defines a marriage. It can only be defined on consenting sexual grounds, then do gays want their consenting sex recognised as marriage. Marriage can only be defined by the State on two person’s intention to form a family; to have children of their relationship

>>The New Zealand Parliament will now need to define what they mean by "two people who love each other" as forming the state of matrimony that needs to be recognised by the State.<<

Bullsh!t. The phrase "two people who love each other" doesn't appear anywhere in the NZ marriage legislation so its meaning is of no relevance to the NZ parliament. You are a liar.

>>Marriage can only be defined by the State on two person’s intention to form a family; to have children of their relationship<<

Bullsh!t again. The changes to the NZ legislation don't mention family or children: marriage is not defined by the State on people's intentions to have children. It isn't in Australia either: the State will quite happily recognise the marriages of couples who know themselves to be infertile and obviously have no intention of having children. Why is that you can't argue the case on its facts and feel the need to tell lies instead?

For those of you who prefer facts to Josephus's bullsh!t here are the actual amendments to NZ's marriage laws:

http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/C29CDB15-FF6C-457C-B33E-CD45E1EEC519/225087/MarriageEqualityAmendmentBill_1.pdf

The relevant section being this bit:

>>5 New section 23A inserted (Marriage of persons of same
sex not unlawful)
After section 23, insert:
“23A Marriage of persons of same sex not unlawful
“(1) The marriage of 2 persons is not unlawful by reason only of
their being of the same sex.
“(2) Anyprincipleor ruleof commonlaw tothe effect that marriage
between 2 persons is unlawful by reason only of their being of
the same sex is abolished.”<<

See Josephus? Just a bit that says that marriage isn't unlawful by reason only of the couple being of the same sex: nothing about love or families or children or whatever other crap you want to invent. Let's try to stick to the facts in future shall we Josephus?

Cheers,

Tony

Here are a few phrases all guvments and a helluva lot of individuals need to practice saying:
"Too much information"
"None of my business"
"Why should I care"
"if you're not hurting or exploiting anyone, so what?"
Or, if you want to get biblical:
"Love thy neighbour" -no qualifications
"Treat others as you would like to be treated" -no qualifications
It truly amazes me, how many good church going Christians revere the words of their God, but still think he accidentally missed a few 'buts' and 'except for's.
Sloppy, God.

PC is showing its head here, and a form of bitterness toward gays.
To be honest in my youth no government would have ever considered legalizing these weddings.
And many of us, afraid of what? I am unsure, stand firmly against changing the law.
Maybe we should see it is not the late night public toilets activitys we all, mostly, dislike, I understand why followers of God do not want what we call Christian weddings.
But why not legislate to make a different type of wedding legal.
No good beating around the bush, I if asked to vote, on same sex having the same ceremony, would vote no.
We however are a far different people than my youth saw, PC gets its hands on public opinion every time.
So mixed up as my thoughts are,why not legailse a special form for these weddings.
Our fears, biases, wants, will never stop same sex folk being as they are.

The 77 New Zealand Government members show their naivety by defining marriage based merely on “love between two persons”. This was the trust of the debate, which led to the removal of defnitions that excluded gays fro the marriage act. The marriage agenda has been set by gay socialist lawyers who have managed to hoodwink the people into a popular belief that marriage is merely defined by love between two persons. This is really “erotic” love, and not commitment to family which is “agapae”, sacrifice for spouse and children. Their real agenda is for healthy women in a gay relationship to access IVF and healthy men in a gay relationship to access surrogacy and both to access adoption. This means a challenge to existing social norms based on biological fact, and evolved principles held by society and the Church. We will now have fatherless and motherless children in society based on the emotional whims of the one parent who cannot accept their biological role. The child will not have a lifelong stable and intimate relationship and identity with both parents. This is a retrograde move to the stable health of children in society.

"We will now have fatherless and motherless children in society based on the emotional whims of the one parent who cannot accept their biological role."

I always felt sorry for Jesus...

I know he had Joseph, but that's a poor substitute when your biological father thinks he can come and go as he pleases.