Website Launched to Protect Good Families From Smacking Law

Media Release 17 July 2011
Family First NZ has launched a website to give support to good families who are at risk of police and CYF intervention because of the anti-smacking law. 

“The politicians entered every family home in 2007 with an attitude of ‘we know best’ and removed the right of good Kiwi parents to raise their children as they see fit in a reasonable and non-abusive way,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. 

“Despite assurances to the contrary, families have been torn apart, accused of lying and dragged through the courts with disturbing results.”

The website www.protectgoodparents.org.nz features the just-released documentary “My Mummy’s A Criminal” which highlights five families who have been criminalised as a result of the anti-smacking law. 

The new website also has additional resources for families including legal advice for parents from six lawyers, the experience of parents, why the Prime Minister’s ‘Latta’ review was flawed, the research on why smacking is not child abuse, and what the real causes are. 

“Parenting in New Zealand has been put on trial. The politicians have dealt a heavy legislative blow to parents, and parents are feeling disempowered, disrespected, and demonised as child abusers.” 

“We all desperately want to tackle our unacceptable rates of child abuse. But it’s time we targeted rotten and dysfunctional parents where children really are at risk, rather than good parents who are simply trying to raise great kids. We should be supporting good parents – not criminalising them,” says Mr McCoskrie. 

“Ex-Prime Minister Helen Clark was quite right when she said that a ban on smacking would defy human nature. This website will protect good kiwi parents until the politicians see fit to amend a law which has been labelled by the current Prime Minister John Key as a ‘dog’s breakfast’.”
ENDS

Share

70 comments for “Website Launched to Protect Good Families From Smacking Law

  1. Mike
    29 February 2012 at 3:46 pm

    I too find myself intimidated by the Law. The only reason I don’t give my children a good smack when they need one is because of the law. As a result I have a 2 year old child who understands he can do as he pleases with no serious consequences from me. All the Rewarding good behaviour and removing treats for bad behaviour psycho babble means nothing to him.
    The Other day in the supermarket he was in a trolley but he kept standing up. Repeatedly he was told to sit down and that he would have missed out on this and that if he doesn’t do what he is told. This clearly didn’t work where as a firm smack would have got the message across straight away. Instead it ended with my child falling from the trolley onto his head.
    What is the cost of not smacking?
    Concussion?
    Serious brain Injury?
    Seizures for the rest of his life?
    These are some of the injuries my child could have suffered simply because I couldn’t give him a firm smack to help him understand the importance of doing what he is told (in this case staying seated).

  2. Karen
    1 April 2012 at 3:34 am

    Yes totally agree with you Mike. I too have changed my parenting style for my youngest as I too am afraid of what one concerned neighbours call to the police could cost me. My older three children are well behaved respectful happy children who teachers and other parents often comment on as being wonderful children and I am concerned that because a quick smack to the leg or on the back of the hand has been taken out of my parenting repetoire that it is my youngest child and the rest of society that will suffer as we raise self-indulgent children who do not know what boundaries are. The other day in the supermarket a child was screaming and screaming and the mother was at a loss to get them to stop. All the other shoppers were plugging their ears and two different older shoppers commented to me that all that was required was a small slap to the hand and peace would have returned to the mothers shopping trip but instead all the other shoppers had to get headaches instead…. What will these children be like as adults in 15 years time?

  3. James
    2 April 2012 at 3:13 pm

    I note that the recently deceased Professor Sir Paul Callaghan, perhaps New Zealand’s best known, decorated, and loved scientist, commented on discipline shortly before he died. He said:

    “I got in my fair share of trouble, but I got away with things. The number of times a kindly local policeman said to me `Paul, you do that you’re going to end up in real trouble. I’m letting you off this time but you go throwing stones on the roof of the public toilets in Hill St again …’ That was one of my crimes. I was probably caned more than most kids at school. And deserved it.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/6636553/Sir-Paul-Callaghan-Kiwi-visionary-looks-back-on-life

    Evidently discipline did not turn Sir Paul into a monster, and looking back he was in favor of the pain inflicted upon himself by others who cared enough to dish out the necessary punishment.

    I think I’ll follow Sir Paul’s example rather than Sue Bradford’s idiocy.

  4. cosmopolite
    3 June 2012 at 3:25 pm

    My wife put our youngest in preschool starting at age 2-3, precisely in order to allow her to shop without the youngest in tow, which would give rise to potential tragedies of the sort you describe. We can afford preschool, kindie etc. Many Kiwi parents cannot. The Bradford Law will have all sorts of unintended consequences.

  5. David Favel
    4 June 2012 at 4:25 pm

    I was caned at school. And had the strap.
    On a number of occasions I was offered the choice between detention and cane. I chose cane as it was over in seconds and could then go on my way. The few downsides were…
    The teacher who would swing the cane in a circle till he finally struck. You never knew exactly when it was going to connect, and the sadist who would position my head under a desk so I got the double whammy.

  6. Bob
    4 June 2012 at 6:29 pm

    We had a teacher like that. Often just hit the desk and the kid got such a fright, they’d jump and bang their head!

  7. David Favel
    4 June 2012 at 11:24 pm

    Exactly, at intermediate we had a teacher that would apply the strap to the hand and up the forearm.
    A teacher to be afraid of…

  8. Laura Knight
    19 July 2012 at 10:28 pm

    I have four great kids aged 15months – 8years, and No.5 is well on the way. My children are all well grounded, generally well behaved and are pleasant to be around. My husband and I receive regular affirmation about the good job we are doing with our children. I haven’t allowed such a ludicrous law to influence my parenting. The responsibility of nuturing and equipping my children for the big wide world is just too important to let that happen. I smack my children for disobedience in any form and the results are instantly positive and encouraging. I do believe there have to be specific regulations that you have to stick to if you choose to smack your kids. These should be defined at each individual parents discretion. Even my husband and I have different strategy’s. Like I said earlier, I only smack as a consequence for disobedience. I let my child know that I will not tolerate their behaviour or attitude and if they don’t change it immediately then they will be getting a smack. If I have to follow through I do so calmly and always with an element of affection for them. Never when I’m angry. Never in public or even in front of their siblings. It’s always carried out in my bedroom with the door semi-closed and curious siblings are told to make themselves scarce. This is to honour the child’s dignity and save them from humiliation. I then explain again why they are in this predicament and the consequence of them ‘choosing’ to carry on unacceptable behaviour. Then I smack them, put them on my knee and hold them until they feel better. I firmly but gently tell them that I love them but they need to listen. I am always surprised at how quickly the crying stops and at the immediacy of a loving, compliant and happy child being restored. If we are out in public and my child is being disobedient I give them the same steps of warning but it changes slightly to ‘when we get home, you’ll be getting a smack’ then I follow through as soon as I’m able. If they are being a danger to themselves then I just use share force with them. Make them sit down. Be firm and authoritive then follow through when you get home. Kids are on to it, they soon get the picture. If they are being disruptive in the supermarket, remove them. Put them in the car and tell them they are staying there until they choose to calm down. Meanwhile the rest of you wait “patiently” beside the car ignoring the tantrum. Follow through with the reminder of their behaviour and the consequential smack when you get home. It is just so crucial for our children that we get it right for them. They need loving, affectionate and assertive parents. This bill needs to be re-addressed but in the meantime if we are confident in our loving discipline we can’t let the anti-smacking bill take away from our functional and constructive parenting. The cost is a dysfunctional family life that should be and can be avoided.

  9. Tim Bennett
    1 August 2012 at 1:21 pm

    As a trained early childhood teacher is upsets me greatly that you all think it is OK to hit children. In my career I have never seen the need to hit a child because I didn’t approve of what they were doing. I was also never hit as a child, rather I was loved and nurtured my entire childhood. Positive affirmation was given and I learnt what appropriate behaviors were. I do not see any need to physically assault a child for a behavior you do not like.
    As an adult I am well rounded, polite, educated and tolerant of those around me. I am in a loving relationship and am at ease with my sexuality (being gay by the way – and I doubt that is a result of not being hit). I think that society is in deed in need of a change from the bottom up. There are far too many people that think that it is ok to judge other people on outdated morals. The amount of hate, disgust and violence in the world is far too high for my (and many other people’s) liking. Instead of teaching your children to be angry and to lash out violently in that anger, instead teach them how to control their emotions. Children learn from their parents first and if you only show them violence, that is all they will know for their children.

  10. Bob
    1 August 2012 at 4:31 pm

    Research from Otago UNiversity actually showed that non-abusive smacking resulted in kids with greater self-control! Interesting, eh.

    And they removed corporal punishment from schools because they said it created a violent environment. Since then, have schools got more violent or less violent? Just in case you’re not aware, they are a LOT more violent, as evidenced by education stats on suspensions and stand downs.

  11. Tim Bennett
    2 August 2012 at 12:39 am

    To be honest you can find research to argue almost any stance. Here is a news article about smacking that shows the complete opposite of what you suggest: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6188692/Smacking-makes-children-naughtier-research.html

    As for your argument that since corporal punishment was removed from schools, violence has increased, I’m not sure you can correlate the two. There have been numerous changes to society in those years. Another problem is the fact that the school system does not cater to individual learners. If it did engage all students, perhaps the wouldn’t be these problems. But as it is schools cater to societies view of teaching and learning (which is inherently wrong and goes against evolution) and this causes students who are not engaged to act up and not contribute to the learning community.

  12. 4 September 2012 at 7:40 am

    hi tim john dunford said corpral punishment never worked in schools well it worked for me and my name was never in a book time an time again,i got the strap only once never again that taught me a lesson. tim can you and your partner have children why i ask is that you have no experience of rearing up children unless you have your own im not talking about adopting but giving birth to your own children then you can tell us how its done you seem to know alot of educated words and advise about children, without smacking not beating a smack not hitting a smack, tim thats what you will never be able to judge us women on cos we were given the best gift of all the beautiful womb to bear children to nuture them love,and yes to discipline them bk in the day our very first smack was not from our parents it was by who?yes tim the doctor on our bottoms to make us cry that wasnt called violence hitting etc it was a good sign nowa days they come out crying cos ov the handling by the staff and tubes stuck down there mouth or nose whateva to get the cry going by what ive seen when these babies are born let me no when you start your family especially with your discipline

  13. Tim Bennett
    4 September 2012 at 5:36 pm

    Hi Hannah.
    I resent your implication that adopting children does not make them your children. I have an aunt that was adopted and she was loved equally to her brothers by her parents. If I adopt children or have a surrogate carry them (obviously i cannot carry them as i am a male, and my partner cannot either as he is a male) they will be our children and we will raise them with love and affection.

  14. hannah
    6 September 2012 at 7:22 am

    tim your a trained early childhood teacher, well rounded,polite, tolerant person and very professional and yet you miss my point,when you challenge us women on our ways of discipline concerning smacking i remind you again when you have children of your own and rear them up like your parents reared you up then u can challenge me but too my point i dont have a problem with adoption i tooo have adopted family but like i said the greatest gift we have is the WOMB and what a priviledge that we have the birth canal,children are gifts that we are to love and care for aswell as discipline, its awsum that you acknowledge yourself to be a male tim

  15. Tim Bennett
    6 September 2012 at 1:06 pm

    To be honest Hannah, the only point I can ascertain from your replies is to rub the fact that homosexual makes cannot have children naturally in my face, which is actually quite rude. I have not seen any reason of point to which physical intervention might be necessary (not just from you, but anyone on this comment thread) apart from children not obeying you. Well I don’t know about you, but I am grateful we do not live in totalitarian society where we have to conform to the norms and any others are beaten out of us. If that were the case, homosexuality might still be illegal and punishable by death as it once was.

  16. Jane
    6 September 2012 at 4:57 pm

    Tim I have to agree with Hannah. As a trained early childhood caregiver as well I can assure you having your own chikd is completely different to teaching them. There are challenges to raising kids that only parents understand and until a person becomes one they will not truely understand. I was highly trained oldest of a large family and it is completely different. This is not about beating children this video is about good famalies that have had their kids and the system turn on them. Also no matter how wonderful, kind, or compassionate a parent maybe a challenging child head strong with aggression can emerge from a loving home. Children deserve and need homes with a mother and father married in a loving relationship that situation is what gives kids the best chance in life. And yes since corparal punishment has been removed some kids who have no boundaries at home now have no boundaries at school and it has made for at times a very dangerous enviornment for the other students and the teachers. You have a talk with most high-school teachers all over the western world and they have more then one experiance to share about their frustrations over this issue. My hat goes off to high school teachers the good ones are my heros they put up with so much we don’t events hear about. We need to ask ourselves though when we are old and not able to take care of ourselves will this next generation be able to?

  17. hannah
    7 September 2012 at 1:48 am

    hi tim u said you tolerate those around you,your not tolerable with me i upset you,you resent me im rude,i now i rub my gifts of been a woman in your face, im only quoting your words back to you,i didnt say anything about your sexuality i have offended you i boast about being born a woman because we were created to bear children i take my motherhood very seriously and how i rear them up is to the best of my ability yes i do botch up every now an then im not perfect i havent got any degrees or been trained never been to University im a natural skilled mum and nana who loves my children an my grandz also to discipline, they love me they tell me everyday but i do not tolerate disrespect, swearing,fighting,violence,etc and yes i do smack not beat tim

  18. Daniel
    10 September 2012 at 7:39 pm

    Hi all, this will be quite interesting because I come from a different culture to New Zealand and I would like to share what I have learnt and my views too. My wife is a trained ECE teacher here in New Zealand and she too believes that spanking should be the last resort that parents should use when disciplining a child.

    Where I come from, discipline often involved the use of a cane. As a child I would do my best to hide the cane from my mum, because I knew that if she couldn’t find it, I didn’t have to be afraid of anything. However, mums being mums, she always had a backup that I could never figure out where she kept it… Of course that was me being cheeky 20 odd years ago. I do not bear any scars from the discipline that my mum gave me, and if anything, it proved to me that my mum cared for me and that my discipline hurt her more than it would hurt me.

    So, what has this taught me? My mother’s discipline has taught me to respect my elders, be considerate of those around me, don’t hit other kids, don’t swear and that only those who truly care about you will ever tell you the truth, no matter how painful it is.

    I came to New Zealand 10 years ago and the thing that shocked me the most was the disrespect that teenagers showed their teachers and elders. While I am against child abuse, I think that the majority of parents in New Zealand are more than capable to distinguish between a gentle but firm smack and a full on no-holds-barred punch.

  19. Bob
    10 September 2012 at 9:00 pm

    Thanks Daniel. You are one of the 87% who voted against this farcical law which has done nothing to stop our horrendous rates of abuse.

    Like the overwhelming majority of parents, you know the difference between child abuse and a smack – and the benefits of that smack (which are also backed up by research).

    The sad aspect is that the politicians were completely sucked in, and now won’t right the wrong.

  20. Susan
    28 October 2012 at 1:58 pm

    Yes, Tim, it is possible to raise children without smacking…depending on their disposition they may turn out fine.But as a mother of 5 children, mostly grown, and brought up ‘pre-Bradford’, I know that a lot depends on the disposition on the child. Some are naturally more compliant. Others are more strong-willed by nature and just won’t respect authority without a little force being used. I shudder to think what two of mine in particular would be like if I had not smacked them when necessary – but now they are the most wonderful, intelligent, responsible, likeable etc …. adults.
    So, when people say that they were brought up without smacking and have turned out ok, so it should be fine for everyone, it just shows me how little they really know about bringing up children.

  21. Jacquiline Palmer
    4 November 2012 at 3:51 pm

    I have just been through a horrible experience with my 12 year old girl. She is number 4 of 5 children and I do or did smack all of them when they pushed too far, with the palm of my open hand and on their legs or bottom. It has not hurt my 21, 19 and 17 year olds and they were smacked far more than the two younger ones for the obvious reason that is was not illegal when they were young. The older kids tell me it had not hurt them, in fact it taught them I cared about what they were doing and what was acceptable behaviour in our society. My 12 year old went to school a few weeks ago after arguing about her bedroom mess (I found three kitchen bowls hidden in her drawers with at least 10cm of mould in them and she refused to clean them up.) This was after many weeks telling her to sort out her room and did she have the bowls in question! I exploded and yelled as she walked out the door ignoring me. I did not smack her then, it had been about a week since I had given her a smack for her rude behaviour. She went to school and told the teacher I had been beating her and her younger sister who is 4. The CYFS worker arrived from our nearest branch (2 hours away) and interviewed her at school, I knew nothing of it all until the two local policemen and CYFS worker arrived at 5 that night to speak to me. My daughter did not come home after school and i was not notified where she was. I wasn’t too worried as she was involved in everything and usually she had a sport or activity to do after school most days. I was made to pull my little girls pants down to prove she had no welts or bruises on her legs or bottom. I was grilled about smacking my kids and i admitted to smacking them occasionally. I will not teach my kids to lie. My 17 year old daughter and 21 year old son arrived and told the “visitors” the kids were not beaten and my 12 year old just wanted her own way. It was true. My little one is very strong minded and frankly the most naughty child I have ever had or even cared for! she needs a smack to make her realise she is going to far with her bad behaviour occasionally and we are talking maybe one smack in four or five months. My mother who was a long term foster parent in the 70’s, 80’s and early 90’s and very highly thought of by police and social welfare was also accused and put through the questioning. My 12 year old came home the next day and apologised to me however the caseworker wants me to find a way to relieve my stress and have parenting courses at my nearest city (2 hours away). I told her to get jumped on basically! All because I admitted to smacking my children. My three eldest are all working and always have, even while still at school. I am very proud of the adults they have become. My 12 year old has everything (except a father around who left two weeks before she was born and I was single parent for 8 years bringing up 4 children), she does ski racing, gymnastics, sang with Yulia in a performance, netball and anything else that comes along. She is also working at two years above her school level so is very bright and talented. I won’t let her walk the streets with her friends, dye her hair, wear sexy clothes etc… like her friends so i am a bad mother. We really have lost our power as parents to teach our children right from wrong and it sometimes needs a smack to achieve this. There is a big difference between children who are abused and children who are smacked occasionally. Any experienced childcarer would know that my daughter is far too outgoing and clever to be abused. This is a small town and the teachers know me very well as do the Police. One of them has a son in the same ski race team. Luckily their knowledge of me and my family and my daughter saved me facing charges, but the CYFS worker who doesn’t know us has other ideas. Thanks for opening this site, it will be a place of salvation for parents who want to bring up sensible, happy and thoughtful children to be adults who can run our country safely. Tim, no offence, but until you have been there, done that, you can not make an informed comment on disciplining children. They are very different at Childcare centres than at home. I know, I also worked in them and it is much easier to care for children there as you have no emotional involvement with the child. You also have other adults to call on for help for a difficult child, a single parent doesn’t have that at the moment when a child is being naughty. We are just trying to be good parents. We get the blame for bad teenagers but are not allowed to teach them how to behave, they know they can just go to the teacher and make accusations and the ball is set rolling. Sorry this is so long, it is good to voice my views with others who agree.

  22. Susan
    5 November 2012 at 1:50 am

    I was interested Jacquiline that you mentioned your daughter is working 2 years above her level at school. I think it is often the brighter children who push the boundaries the most – at least it has been with mine.

  23. Rhona
    11 November 2012 at 12:12 pm

    Just wanted to say ‘bravo’ on your report about the Massachusetts assisted killing referendum result, Bob dear. That said, it was frighteningly close- 51% against, 49% in favour. Disabled people should not have had to deal with such insulting questions about their right to life, palliative and remedial health care. Can you blame me for still opposing binding referenda, given the closeness of that result? Look at how close it was- even given the hopeful signs that Lifesite commented on…

  24. Naomi Woodfield
    12 November 2012 at 8:19 pm

    Just curious – you have a child that will not listen to you – you take away the toys or anything else that is rewarding to the child, you try asking the child to sit in a corner & think about their behaviour – & you try everything but smacking the child – still the child throws tantums, does what they want when they want – now what do you do? Bearing in mind there are children that are born with a strong nature. Do you A. Let them grow up doing whatever & then they become selfish, thoughtless, mindless individuals – because you dont smack them & show them boundaries. B. Stress yourself out until the child leaves home trying everything but smacking & still end up with a brainless, selfish, thoughtless adult. C. Smack the child when neccessary on the bottom & explain to the child why, (smacking forces the child to stop what they are doing & listen – making them able to learn) – the consequence a well rounded individual who was taught through love there are boundaries in life.

    If we take away smacking then lets be really clever & close jails – why should there be any consequences for wrong behaviour – lets just all be mindless, thoughtless & selfish.

  25. Tim Bennett
    12 November 2012 at 9:37 pm

    Well you could try D. Ignore tantrums… They are for your attention. Use positive reinforcement for preferential behavior. I think you will find that children prefer positive attention to no attention (obviously cutting out the negative attention if you ignore tantrums) and see how that works before smacking them… Just a thought. Also, it may prove useful to go to a parenting course because they may have other ideas, being professionals in that sort of thing and all…

  26. Naomi Woodfield
    12 November 2012 at 10:02 pm

    Hi Tim,

    Yes, I have written after throughly trying everything but smacking & none of those options work. Also, I wasn’t talking about tantrums – my daughter does have those but she is strong willed & I exhaust all other avenues first everytime. But I have proven with my child that the small smack on the bum gets her attention & allows her to listen to me as to why her behaviour is intolerable.

    Your being a smart alec with your comment only showed that it is obvious your knowledge of parenting is nil. NO parent has a so called professional on call & NO ONE is a professional when it comes to children.

    Tim each child is different & needs to be directed differently.

  27. Naomi Woodfield
    12 November 2012 at 10:10 pm

    Hi Tim,

    In my previous comment I meant to write that I was not refering to tantrums & Positive reinforcement of course should be used each & everytime a child shows good behaviour or a job well done.I was refering to bad behaviour in general. Being as clever as you are Tim you should know that ignoring bad behaviour is not an option. If an adult was abusing you or acting incorrectly would you just ignore it – NO Tim it is not to be ignored that is not an option.

    Unless you think that closing jails & ignoring bad adult behaviour is also an option.

  28. Tim Bennett
    12 November 2012 at 10:28 pm

    I didn’t say ignore bad behavior. I said ignore tantrums (when a child is screaming and has lost control of their emotions). Of course there needs to be consequences for undesirable behavior, all i am saying is that there are other ways of dealing with that behavior than hitting children. I also suggested a parenting course for you to have an expert on the subject of child rearing discuss other techniques with you.

    In regards to jails, that is another issue entirely and i am not going to bite you bait. This forum is about smacking children

  29. Naomi Woodfield
    12 November 2012 at 10:42 pm

    Hi Tim,

    Yes, but I wasn’t talking about tantrums – so your comment was irrelevant. I was talking about bad behaviour & also, I did say that after taking all other steps before smacking. Also, as itelligent as your comments seem – the comment about taking a parenting course you again have disregarded what I wrote – Also, Tim each child is different & it is not possible for there to be an expert on any one child. But yes, because you seem to want to argue instead of making valid points they can give some good advice – but that is all.

    My comment about jail is not bait Tim – I am having an adult discussion & my point is valid. Jail is what happens to adults who are naughty Tim. Because when you raise your child you are bringing them up so they can live in the real world. If you don’t teach them properly this is where they would end up.

    So, Tim my point is if you do not look after all your childs needs properly including disapline – then lets just forget about disapline with adults as well – because the end result is the same.

  30. Tim Bennett
    12 November 2012 at 11:05 pm

    Jail is (in part) for adults that do not conform.

    I mentioned tantrum in response to your question, and i quote ‘you try everything but smacking the child – still the child throws tantums, does what they want when they want – now what do you do?’ So it is not irrelevant actually.
    And if you want to talk about making moot arguments, perhaps you should mention actual strategies that would work, other than smacking instead of saying sarcastic comments that actually have 0 validity to them such as:
    “A. Let them grow up doing whatever & then they become selfish, thoughtless, mindless individuals – because you dont smack them & show them boundaries.”
    And
    “B. Stress yourself out until the child leaves home trying everything but smacking & still end up with a brainless, selfish, thoughtless adult.”
    Because neither of these arguments are going to do anything, and they are counted out by you anyway by the last half of the comment.

    Also, i thought this was a forum for debate, thus why i am arguing my point that smacking is not the only way to bring up children (nor is it necessary) because it is what i firmly believe, what my training has taught me and what i preach to parents that ask me for advice on parenting issues

  31. hannah
    13 November 2012 at 12:48 am

    hi jacquline wow your a awsum mum are you able to help me by sharing how and what u did to create such firm discipline an boundaries with your kidz an i see your 12yr old has xtra strong will power compared to the others but she knew she did wrong and said sorry thats humbling

  32. Naomi Woodfield
    3 March 2013 at 10:35 pm

    Smacking is definitely a final resort. There are many other ways to first let a child understand the difference between right & wrong. Because it is the point of being a parent is to prepare them for the world. When all options have been exhausted then a smack on the bum (not using your hand – the hand should be for love only, but a small wooden spoon) IS A GREAT OPTION. No matter the punishment it is about the child understanding & remembering the difference between right & wrong. This is most important if they are to function in the world. If by chance you have the amazing child that never needed a smacked bum to help them remember then what a blessed child was born to you. But in reality that is rare if actually true. A smack on the bum is not child abuse – What a ridicously, stupid, idea! What is worse a child with a smack on the bum who knows the difference between right & wrong, or the child that needed the smack on the bum & never got it – never learning between right & wrong & becoming an idiot on the subject.

  33. howard clifton
    11 March 2013 at 2:57 am

    Tim you have no idea, every child is different, every child need positive reinforcement in some form or another, it might, yes might involve smacking, it might involve other forms of discipline,but the scary part is that parents who have kids that are unruly,and because they are scared to smack them , are resorting to drugging them with mind altering drugs, as young as three, so our future children will grow up brain damaged zombies, now that scares the hell out of me, this country needs to stop being sheep and following other countries and become leaders , give parents back the right to be parents, bugger that’s scary isn’t it, as i said GIVE PARENTS THE RIGHT TO BE PARENTS.let families be families,

  34. Eileen
    11 March 2013 at 2:45 pm

    I agree that every child is different and what works with one may not work with another. Of my six children, some responded to reason and some to punishments that did not involve smacking. Some of those punishments may even have been regarded by the child involved as far harsher than a smack would have been. And, yes, when absolutely necessary, a smack was administered.

    Others have made this point, a smack is usually a way of getting the child’s attention in the first place so that they will stop and actually listen to what you are saying. I think someone said their are nerve endings in the bottom of a child that send messages to the brain. The message is, “Pay attention”.

    I have seen the results of this ridiculous no-smacking law and the frustration of parents. Tim Bennett may have been a little angel for his parents and I have had two of those in the mix. I have also had one with a very strong will who thought it was child abuse whenever I denied her what she wanted.

    Tim said: “Instead of teaching your children to be angry and to lash out violently in that anger, instead teach them how to control their emotions. Children learn from their parents first and if you only show them violence, that is all they will know for their children.”

    How can we not agree with that statement. The only problem is, a frustrated parent is more likely to “lash out violently” when they reach the end of their tether, after all else has failed. A smack, as discipline, is quite different and not given in anger but, as I said before, to get their attention before the behaviour gets out of control.

    We must also distinguish between the abusive, violent parent and the parent who loves his/her child and teaches them self-control.

    Tim said: “I have not seen any reason of point to which physical intervention might be necessary (not just from you, but anyone on this comment thread) apart from children not obeying you. Well I don’t know about you, but I am grateful we do not live in totalitarian society where we have to conform to the norms and any others are beaten out of us.”

    I don’t understand the comparison of a child’s obedience to living in a totalitarian society. A family is not a democracy and there are rules and regulations which, if not obeyed, carry consequences.

    Obedience is necessary, not only in families but also in society. Without it we have the nightmare of unrestrained autonomy, which, unfortunately, is becoming a reality. It is necessary for loving parents to discipline their children until they learn to discipline themselves.

  35. Naomi Woodfield
    13 March 2013 at 7:00 pm

    Well said to both Howard Clifton & Eileen. Unless you have your own children I don’t see how you can make a well thought out & fact based comment. Being a teacher, councellor or anyone else with only a job minding children does not give you the same experience as a parent. I am glad that there are people out there with enough common sense to see the reality of raising a healthy child/children emotionally, physically, mentally & spiritually.

  36. Daniel
    16 March 2013 at 6:32 pm

    Tim it sounds like you would have us conform to your idea of “Norms in Society” and that parents that do use a smack as part of disciplining their children should be locked up in jail for not conforming to your view of what “society’s norms” should be.

    Now doesn’t that wreak of totalitarianism?

  37. 20 March 2013 at 9:44 pm

    There is no need to be surprised, parenting has become an old issue that most parents find it difficult to deal with. While there is the law against a smack, I do agree that as a parent, it is important not to give a smack even when kids need one.

  38. Liam Catton
    24 March 2013 at 1:44 am

    Here’s a question guys, if an adult decides to smack another adult because he’s displaying undesirable behaviour, is it:

    (A): Good Hard Discipline
    (B): A criminal attack

    If you chose B, you’d be absolutely correct even by the law. You’d be disgusted if you heard about that. Now how is it that if we turn the attacked adult in my hypothetical situation into a young child, the answer would completely change into being societally acceptable by all you ‘good parents’.

    Here’s a surprise yeah, I’m 14 and I was never smacked. I know, you’re thinking ‘He’s never been smacked and he’s not a parent so he doesn’t know anything’, but what makes you think you do? Some of you say that there’s no perfect parent with a non-violent solution for every child out there, but then how can you preach that and think ‘I got this’ because you don’t know yourself. Because you’re not a perfect parent, (and you certainly don’t get any f***ing marks for attacking your kids).

    Naomi, wow, I mean you’re just top mum, right? You’ve got all the tips and tricks wrapped around the handle of your little wooden spoon. You’re not teaching your children. Instead of making them think, “This is a bad idea because it might have bad consequences not just for me but for others around me, so I may be considerate and rethink my actions.”, you’re making them think “This is a great idea but I’ll get smacked by my parents for it so I’ll rethink my actions.” What a cheap, lazy way to parent.

    I get that you feel argumentative in that Tim isn’t a parent so his opinion is less valuable, I get that, you’re offended because you put effort into being a parent and don’t want to be judged by someone who hasn’t put in the same labour. But I think you’re completely wrong, someone who hasn’t directly had babies can still have parental experience.

    You’re not New Zealanders, you’re not showing love and spirit to your children. You’re showing hate and violence, and you’re preaching it to others. I feel SORRY for your children. You’re not fit parents.

  39. Eileen
    26 March 2013 at 1:58 pm

    Ah. The arrogance of the teen who believes he has all the theoretical answers and actual experience counts for nothing. I remember those days so well. When my eldest daughter was fourteen I phoned my mother and apologised for my behaviour.

    Liam, when my youngest daughter was fifteen and I was unable to control her defiant and aggressive behaviour I called the police to deal with the situation. It took a few years but eventually she admitted I had no other choice.

    How sad that, as a parent, society left me with no other alternative. I have worked with other teenagers who have been kicked out of home when they were 15-16 years of age because their parents did not know how to handle their bad behaviour.

    Liam, you said: “You’re showing hate and violence, and you’re preaching it to others.” No, if I didn’t discipline my children it would have been because I didn’t care what happened to them.

    I had a son, like you, who at the age of 14 had never been smacked. At 16, I had a long talk with the police about him and his companions as I was concerned. It took police intervention and a trip to Paremoremo to sort him out.

    Another son, who did receive a smack now and then in his very early years, is now a police officer. He will probably end up working with youth as he says he knows that naughty boys are not necessarily bad boys.

    I had six children who are now all strong, confident, responsible adults, and great parents of loving, confident children. People often comment on the love and closeness of our family. At a recent gathering they were sharing memories of their childhood and all agreed that they had an awesome childhood.

  40. Liam Catton
    27 March 2013 at 12:00 am

    Alright Eileen, there’s no need to sell your family as if you’re the new Brady Bunch. Just because your children turned out well doesn’t mean all the glorious credit goes to your open hand.

  41. Susan
    27 March 2013 at 2:22 am

    Actually,if her children turned out so well, I think the credit does go to her.

  42. Naomi Woodfield
    18 April 2013 at 10:14 pm

    Hi Liam Catton,

    You read my words how you wanted to read them & replied of course how I would expect in an emotionally adolescent way. One day Liam when you have children of you own then feel free to comment. This is when you will have gained some experience. Last time I checked Liam I became a New Zealander the moment I was born into Christchurch. Your silly insults show your imaturity & that is fine at age 14 your still young make the most of it.

    Actually Liam it takes alot of love to disapline appropriately with a smack. But I wouldn’t expect for you to understand or anyone who has not had children & funnily enough it seems the ones without hands on experience with their own children are the ones making the most negative comments.

    A smack on the bottom is not one done by force or violence it is an action to stop the child from living the moment in the tantrum as time out is not workable for all children. For a child to learn the mistake a child must be in a situation to be able to hear. It is pointless punishing a child in any shape or form if you do not have their attention so you are able to explain the reason behind why what they did was wrong.

    To you Eileen well done the hardest thing in life is to raise children but the most rewarding.

  43. Tim Bennett
    18 April 2013 at 10:27 pm

    OK, I may not have “hands on experience with their own children”, but I do have friends with their own children that I have discussed this with, god children I deal with on a regular basis and years of experience and THEORY (which as it happens is often written by theorist who have their own experience with their own children) that back my views on smacking.
    If you think about it, this is obviously going to be a very biased forum for this debate, much like the “Protect Marriage” Facebook page is (which is run by this parties members and blocks or deletes any pro-equality posts) because its the people that subscribe to it that discuss and not many liberally minded people who refer to contemporary theory or ideals would subscribe to a page riddled with such contempt for for said views. I know I only subscribed after seeing the complete lack of balance in this discussion and I personally care a great deal for the children in our country and I want people to think critically about what they expose their children to and the pro’s and con’s of their actions.
    As for conservative views, and the notion of “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” or in this case “I was hit and I turned out fine”, if we lived by these ideas, society would not move forward. We would be living in caves with only fire to warm us and tribal wars over territory constantly happening. We have broken away from our primeval roots and we are developing culturally, socially and scientifically. Don’t live in your past thinking its better, live for the future. Prepare children for tomorrow’s world, not the world that our schooling system was designed for (The Industrial Revolution FYI).

  44. Naomi Woodfield
    18 April 2013 at 11:49 pm

    Tim of course you would have people that back your views I can say the same – a pointless comment. Also, if you dont believe smacking is the right way you are entitled to your opinion but it doesnt make it right.

    I am speaking from experience of my own child just the same as the others speaking positively about smacking. It seems that if any of the children mentioned were being taught violence then logic tells me it would be a fact the children would be exhibiting this behavior already. Yet the parents on here including myself have a great relationship with our children. People love looking after mine & I have never had a bad word on her behaviour in fact so much so the opposite. What wonderful parenting I must be producing for such great results.

  45. Liam Catton
    19 April 2013 at 5:02 am

    The only reason Naomi that your children don’t resent you smacking them is because that is obviously what they grew up being used to, probably assuming everybody else gets smacked in their homes. I’d like to make the point that if you wouldn’t smack your children in public for fear of being approached and verbally abused by someone nearby for smacking your kids, shouldn’t the fear of being caught tell you that it’s wrong?

    I obviously don’t have children, that’s a no-brainer. But that doesn’t mean I don’t have experience raising children. I have a beautiful niece, who in her toddler years is beginning to get into all sorts of trouble, pulling things off the kitchen bench, stealing things and putting them in her crib etc. but I would never dream of smacking her bottom or her hand for discipline. In fact, my sister doesn’t ever raise her voice or her hand but instead, gives a firm ‘no’ and puts her in the naughty corner if the problem persists.

    Ultimately what I’m saying is, you are choosing the lazy way to be a parent. Smacking your kids instead of teaching them why what they’re doing is not okay and giving them a non-violent/scary disciplinary punishment and then trying to defend yourself by saying that it’s what you believe in. I’m 14, but I’m not stupid. And by the way, you’re the one trying to make snide little insults with your ‘oh, you’re just a kid’ and your ‘when you grow up, you’ll understand’ but I think you’re the one that needs to do some learning lady.

    I swear to donuts, we need less people like you dragging New Zealand backwards in development.

  46. Liam Catton
    19 April 2013 at 5:06 am

    I also want to mention that I have a massive family, and with my two younger siblings in their kid years, I absolutely can’t perceive how ashamed I would feel if I was the reason they had tears of pain and fear strolling down their cheeks. But if you’re absolutely okay with that, you’re either made of stone or you’re made of stone.

  47. Liam Catton
    19 April 2013 at 5:11 am

    And Tim, I totally agree about the Marriage Equality page. They don’t even have an open mind, I didn’t even want to have a yell at them, I just wanted an open minded debate, but they blocked me from messaging them. Their argument is that marriage’s sole purpose is to bear children. But if that’s REALLY the reason why, why aren’t they protesting women who can’t have children getting married? I don’t see any pages about protecting marriage from people who give their children up for adoption. It’s all ridiculous, but at least it doesn’t matter anymore because Bob McCoskrie and his clowns lost. (:

  48. Abigail
    26 April 2013 at 4:48 am

    Liam Catton, will you be honest enough to answer, are you Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

  49. Tim Bennett
    27 April 2013 at 12:42 am

    I for one am pro-choice. Children are special and paramount to our society, however there are valid reason for abortions and it is often dangerous for mother or child to see a pregnancy through for health reasons, addiction reasons, psychological reasons and so on.

    I, being a gay male, am going to have a hard time when I am ready for children (and I will be having children, thank goodness for the new legislation allowing me to adopt with my future husband!) and it would be great if there were a larger pool of children to adopt in New Zealand because currently there are far more loving and nurturing homes than there are children up for adoption. However, it would be immoral of us to force pregnancy on somebody who may come to harm because of the pregnancy, has substance abuse problems and will likely impact on the health of the foetus or that will suffer from psychological trauma carrying the after effects of a rape or other issues that may come from the pregnancy.

    I digress however, this doesn’t seem particularly relevant to the topic thread Abigail…

  50. Liam Catton
    29 April 2013 at 3:44 am

    I have a feeling you’re trying to bait me, Abigail. Planning to attack if I give an opinion you don’t like haha, well, I’m pro choice to a degree. I truly don’t think that a woman should have to go through with pregnancy if she doesn’t have the mental and/or physical stability to cope. But that’s completely irrelevant, so never mind my opinion.

  51. Abigail
    29 April 2013 at 4:13 am

    Bait you and attack you? Wow, never pictured you as being afraid of a 59 year old Grandmother even if you are only 14!!

    The reason for my question was that I noticed the distinct possibility of a contradiction in your thinking, and it seems I was correct.

    Let me explain the confusion I see in your dialogue over the issue of “rights”.

    On one hand you are defensive of homosexuals “right” to takeover marriage, even though they have their own ‘state of union’ in the Civil Union Bill….. You are also defensive of the “anti-smacking” bill stating that it is &

    You place the “rights” of the child over the rights of a mother or father to ‘spank’ (NOT abuse) BUT you place the rights of a ‘mother’ over the rights of the child, the most helpless and innocent of children, to KILL them. Don’t you see the contradiction there? Children are valuable human life with rights, babies are children, valuable human life with rights; UNBORN babies are human babies in the most sacred of places on earth, the womb! No woman or man has the right to kill them and it is murder – everytime!

    Liam you are part of the future of this world – do you know that Abortion is a BILLION dollar business? That’s the real reason why it’s legal, because many people get filthy-dirty rich through abortion. You are not old enough to have seen the progression of the evil that is taking over this world – I don’t say that to be condescending, it is just a fact of your age. But don’t despise the wisdom around you and get deceived by the liberal thinking around you. Think about these things and ask God to show you wisdom. Sounds like you have a good brain, use it wisely and for good things!

  52. Abigail
    29 April 2013 at 4:18 am

    oops, MISSING QUOTE – ” Lazy parenting” and “violent”

    PS – Abortion is VERY violent, take a look at the photos on the net of forceps and sissors grabbing the back of a little baby’s neck and cutting their spinal column in half! If that doesn’t make a person sick to their stomach they’re inhuman! Babies in the womb feel pain – thats a medical fact!

  53. Liam Catton
    30 April 2013 at 2:25 am

    I don’t really have an introduction for the following points I have to make about your comment, Abigail so might as well just jump into them:

    1. Homosexuals do have the Civil Union Bill, that’s true. But that isn’t good enough, what if Maori iwi weren’t compensated for their stolen land because the government acknowledging that the land was stolen was ‘good enough’? What if blacks in America weren’t granted the same rights as whites because riding the back of the bus was ‘good enough’?

    2. I do place the rights of the child over the rights of the parent when it comes to smacking because there are other ways to deal with the kid, you don’t have to SCARE them with violence into being good.

    3. I do also place the rights of the mother over the rights of the child when her danger is in health. What happens when she is a young girl with a frame/body too weak and young to support the growth of a child? What if a woman becomes pregnant through rape and doesn’t want to look into her child’s eyes and see her rapist staring back? What if the mother has a long line of medical problems and doesn’t have the health to carry a baby to full term? What if the mother is severely special needs and doesn’t have the mental stability to understand that a child is growing inside her?

    4. Wave your ‘murder is murder’ flag all you want, I’m not buying.

    5. You don’t know that the ‘real reason’ abortion is legal is because of the revenue. You can SAY that, but doesn’t mean there’s any truth to it. I think our abortion law is fine, I just think the clinics should provide more information about how big the decision of keeping a baby or not is.

    6. I’m not religious, so I won’t be looking to God. And Christians don’t deserve the right to define what marriage is, you didn’t even create it. You’re lucky that governments all around the world decided to legally recognize marriage.

    Like I said, I know you’re trying to bait me because here we go with the ‘pro-life’ brigade but it’s still irrelevant, why are we even talking about this?

  54. Daniel
    30 April 2013 at 4:15 am

    Hi Liam,

    Who’s baiting who? Or more to the point, who’s trolling?

    Your here on Bob McCoskrie’s blog trying to poke fun at the very principles that Bob and the majority of the people subscribed here believe in. You young sir are a troll and are doing the baiting.

    You state you don’t belive in God so therefore you have no foundation to base any of your principles on. Even your experience of the world will not provide any mandate for your principles.

    With regard to marriage GOD established marriage as part of his Creation works at the beginning of time. GOD prescribed the foundational rules for living right their after creating Adam, even before He formed Eve from the rib from Adam, and further explained and expanded that foundational rule for living. Right after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, GOD foretold of the Messiah, Christ Jesus coming to restore mankinds relationship by the suffering, death and ressurection of Christ. Christ was not an after thought, but their at the creation, so as far as the Christian faith is concerned, it has it’s foundation ultimately in God’s creation of the earth, so Marriage is clearly a Christian institution from the beginning of mankind. Marriage is a sacred union of God’s design, as is the family.

    Why is it that marriage and the nuclear family (father and mother raising their children) so universal across all nations and faiths and for all recorded history? And why is that whenever in history that family structure has been undermined that it has ended consistently badly with anarchy, societal collapse, and war? It is because GOD’s design is the only one that works and HE blesses it. Anything mankind fashions in opposition is a rejection of God’s design and is ultimately idolotary, and doomed to fail.

    Just like a god of wood or stone fashioned by man cannot bring the rains or protect itself let alone it’s worshipers so this attempt to redefine marriage and destroy the family will result in failure. GOD does punish unrepentant idolators, and sometimes he punishes them by letting them go willingly to their destruction by their own design.

    The state can accept and protect marriage and family as GOD designed it and be blessed by GOD or the state can reject and pervert it’s view of marriage and family and incur GOD’s judgement in it’s appointed time. Yet God’s design for marriage and family remains as it always was. God won’t be manipulated, or be subject to the will of man, or be bound by legislation.

    Liam you have no foundation from which to speak. You reject the Almighty Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent GOD, and instead try to fashion your own god by your own designs and then expect us to bow down to it?? Yeah Right!

  55. Tim Bennett
    30 April 2013 at 4:52 am

    Oh Daniel come on. Are you going to use mythology as an argument to suggest we uphold the archaic values of the bible? Tell me, do you follow each and every rule outlined in the bible? I highly doubt that. It is a FACT that marriage predates the Christian faith, even predates the concept of the Christian gods to before Babylonian times.

    As for suggesting that Liam’s (and presumably my own) principles have no foundation on which to be based upon, how about morality, justice, fairness, equality and so on. My being able to marry does not change your marriage rights, just as people of African descent marrying people of European descent doesn’t change your marriage, though that was fought against just as hard.

    Marriage has changed countless times throughout history to reflect the maturity of the society at the time. This has simply been another of those changes and doubtless will be the last. It amuses me that you think the state has perverted marriage. It was argued strongly allowing homosexual marriage would lead to paedophilia, incest, polygamy etc etc, yet incest and polygamy are rife throughout the history portrayed by the bible. Obviously Adam and Eve’s family had to inbreed to procreate, and the amount of polygamous marriages discussed in the bible is rather plentiful.

    I suggest you look into other possibilities before you start mouthing off about religion and its’ being the only valid option. There are evolutionary traits that dictate our family sizes and structures, as opposed to ‘god’ dictated law.

    As a final note, I highly doubt anybody is asking you to bow down to one persons beliefs (unlike the bible might I add). We are simply giving our views on this topic to help other think critically about their parenting practices. I, in no way think that my opinions are going to change anyone’s child rearing practices, especially since people reading this a generally fairly conservative and therefore not super open minded about liberal thinking. However I keep up the discussion because I am always hopeful that we as a society will move on from needing to physically punish each other for misdeeds, and move onto more liberal means of behaviour management.

  56. Tim Bennett
    30 April 2013 at 4:56 am

    Doubtless will NOT be the last*

  57. Abigail
    30 April 2013 at 2:34 pm

    LIAM on Abortion –
    Yes why are you even talking about this, Liam, you are a 14 year old who has the attitude of a hypocrite and one who promotes rebellion and *self-interest*. You TALK about protecting children on one hand and then PROMOTE murdering them on the other. You have *opinions* about things you know nothing about – that’s called ignorance.

    Whether you ‘buy it’ or not doesn’t change the fact that abortion is murder! Unborn children are alive and they are human = Human Life – look up your dictionary Liam, willfully killing human life equals murder.

    Are you trying to convince someone that EVERY YEAR in New Zealand over 18,000 women are either raped or suicidal due to pregnancy? Hardly. Does it suit you that females can be promiscuous and males can get their rocks off and not have to take responsibility – sounds like it. However there IS a payday and ‘you’ll find out.’
    The other error in your thinking is that Abortion is legally still a criminal act in New Zealand but in-spite of that 18,000 abortions still take place because mothers lie and the abortion industry makes HUGE money, money from our tax dollars…..but you wouldn’t know about that LIam because you don’t pay tax do you!

    It’s naive & ignorant to believe that money is not the motivation when it clearly is QUOTE CNS NEWS – according to their fact sheet published last year, Planned Parenthood USA performed 333,964 abortions in fiscal 2011, an increase of 4,519 from the 329,445 abortions it did in 2010,
    Over two years, Planned Parenthood says, it has aborted 663,409 babies.
    The 2011-2012 report states that Planned Parenthood received $542.4 million in “government health services grants and reimbursements,” which it states includes “payments from Medicaid managed care plans.”
    The report also shows that Planned Parenthood’s total assets top $1 billion dollars, specifically $1,244.7 billion.

    You have a choice, stay ignorant or get educated about what you discuss.

  58. Daniel
    30 April 2013 at 2:36 pm

    Tim, mythology is your label one which you choose to use so that you don’t have to face the reality of GOD.

    Mans failure to do all GOD commands of it is the very reason why GOD sent Christ into the world. Christ had to die on the cross, in order to satisfy GODS justice so that mankind could be reconciled to HIM again. I cling to the cross of Christ because I am a vile sinner, and worthy of nothing but GOD’s judgment. I know I am a sinner, but I also know where my salvation comes from and where to forgiveness comes from.

    What about you? I’ll bet you are not consistent even with your own view of morality, and that is why you constantly have to change it. How do you reconcile with your own moral code when you fail to meet it. Do you just amend it? Do you try and punish yourself, do you try and make it right and promise to do better. How can you imply I am a hypocrit based on a law you don’t yourself accept, when you can’t even satisfy your own subjective moral code?

    Tim, your claim to “morality, justice, fairness, equality” as the basis of your version of morality are not derived from atheism, rather they have been adopted and perverted from the judeo-christian ethic – GOD’s law. Atheism has no foundation for these things. It doesn’t believe in God, so it must call upon Evolution to provide it’s own mythology of how life came to be. Evolution has no place for morality, justice, fairness, equality, because these things don’t fit in with the framework of survival of the fittest that underpins evolutionary theory. Rather evolutionary theory teaches kill or be killed. Lie, cheat, steal or die of hunger is the only principles that can be derived from evolution and thus the only atheistic position. Evolution and atheism are just the machinations of man trying to deny GOD the honour due HIM.

    Mans view of marriage has at times changed, and societies have allowed all manner of things to be called marriage, and even rejected marriage, but history shows clearly only marriage consistent with GODS design is the foundation for strong families with healthy children (spiritually, morally and physically). Any other design for marriage has consistently failed to deliver. And when nations have followed GODs design for marriage, they have prospered, and when they reject or distort it, they have deminished or been destroyed.

    Tim, I never claimed that the state or anybodies warped view of marriage can destroy or weaken true marriage. The true strength in a Godly marriage is GODS blessing, and obedience to HIS design. Anything else is not marriage regardless of what the state says.

    Marriage doesn’t predate GOD because HE instituted it. Babylon didn’t predate GOD either. Rather the bible teaches us that GOD used Babylon to punish his chosen nation. GOD later destroyed the Babylonian empire for their wickedness, but HE didn’t destroy HIS chosen nation but instead preserved them in exile and later restored them to their own land at HIS appointed time. And yet they continued to sin…

    You see Tim, you and Liam and those of that mindset claim some special knowledge and insight that denies and defies history and ultimately GOD’s design and you do demand we bow down to your little gods. If it were not so, the anti-smacking or redefinition marriage legislation would never have been passed.

    Your claim to liberalism is patently false, as passing laws to enforce particular views and behaviours is the very antithesis of liberal. (It’s actually highly elitist and comes from a socialist philosphy which requires a totalitarian elitist control over the mind of the common man.)

  59. Abigail
    30 April 2013 at 2:38 pm

    LIAM on Marriage –

    The practice of Homosexuality has nothing to do with 96% of the Human population. Heterosexuality has everything to do with the existence of 100% of humanity…..including the 4% who practice homosexuality.
    How do equate that Homosexuality is equally important to heterosexuality?
    That’s like saying smoking is equally important to breathing because you inhale and exhale to both smoke and breathe.

    Quote from – “thats not Bigotry, that’s Biology.”
    > Natural Marriage Creates children, best raises children, protects women, civilizes men, lowers crime, property and welfare which reduces government spending and deficits. = Perpetuates and stabilizes society – everyone benefits even those not married.

    Same sex marriage offers NO benefits to society as a whole, intact it hurts us.
    Whereas Natural marriage focuses on bringing up the next generation to become good citizens; Same-sex unions merely validate sex partners. Natural marriages that don’t create children are the exception, not the rule.

    Statistically natural marriage creates the best family possible for children. Altering that makes the children the losers. Every child needs a Mom and a Dad? (allbeit not all of them get it)

    Wherever same-sex marriage is promoted schools subject the children to MANDATORY homosexual curricula. Business and taxes fund homosexual relationships. Heterosexual (96% of population) is gagged and religious freedom is overruled.

    The government has no compelling benefit in promoting same-sex marriage but there is every reason to keep marriage as naturally between a man and a woman.

    But what about equality, the law already treats every citizen equally every citizen can marry someone of the the opposite sex. Is that fair – Yes, the law treats all PEOPLE the same, but it doesn’t treat all BEHAVIOURS the same. Natural marriage & Same-sex marriage are different BEHAVIOURS with different OUTCOMES. The law was right to treat those BEHAVIOURS differently. Is that discrimination – NO it discriminates against BEHAVIOURS not people. example: Are you being discriminated against when a government promotes police work but you never become a police officer? Of course not. We all benefit when Police work is encouraged. In the same way, people who are in a homosexual relationship are not discriminated against by marriage being between a man and a woman.

    But what about TOLERANCE? Homosexual relationships are already tolerated and catered for, they can commit themselves to each other by entering into the Civil Union which was designed for them – there was no reason for a ‘hostile takeover of marriage other than the agressive promotion of homosexuality to change society ( read the gay manifesto for proof of that)

    Only Natural marriage should be promoted by governments because it alone benefits society – thats not Bigotry, that’s Biology.<

    ….it's not just important to learn, its MORE important WHAT you learn.

  60. Abigail
    30 April 2013 at 2:51 pm

    Well said DANIEL – Amen. I’ve said my piece on this forum and am moving on to other priorities, but you and I can agree that we are called to love those who oppose us and God, and pray for them because He came to save them. Bless you.

  61. Liam Catton
    30 April 2013 at 7:40 pm

    Daniel, I feel asleep when you mentioned Adam and Eve, so to be honest, I didn’t read either of your comments because I think I’ve had enough of Jesus for a while. How about you just think of me as being tested by god, and I just really suck at tests?

    Abigail, I never said I support women getting abortion just because they don’t want the baby. But even though 18, 000 abortions are carried out every year, a percentage of those abortions will be for the reasons I mentioned so that is why I support it, I have nothing else to say about this because it is so off topic.

    Abigail, if homosexuality has nothing to do with 96% of the population (I guess you’re talking about the heterosexuals) why does marriage affect you so severely?! You can’t say that same-sex marriage hurts society. You speak for yourself, not a whole nation.

    Did the statistics for natural marriages come from the Family First research team? Because, I wouldn’t trust them tbh. Sneaky. And I’d just like to say, I didn’t really have a dad growing up and I definitely would say that I don’t need one, especially since he doesn’t support my homosexuality, I would say that it can be better to have one parent. Each family is different, stop comparing them all. I think having at least one parent to depend on is what is necessary and important.

    Abigail, homosexual relationships shouldn’t even have to be ‘tolerated’. They shouldn’t be in a place where people say they ‘tolerate’ them just because it isn’t a part of nature. That’s like saying you ‘tolerate’ money or condoms.

    You still have religious freedom, but that doesn’t mean you get to impose your religion on an ENTIRE COUNTRY. You don’t rule New Zealand, the government does.

    One more thing, I’d like to say that the government supporting same sex marriages would lower the teen suicide rate. Not greatly, but even so. Would you say that a lower suicide rate benefits society?

    When I find the man I want to marry one day Abigail, I’ll make you a very special invitation, yeah? Hopefully you’ll still be alive xxxxxx

  62. Abigail
    30 April 2013 at 9:00 pm

    LIAM and TIM

    I could counter all of your points and we would go on disagreeing, but the MOST vital issue is your soul.

    You are not a body with a Spirit, you are a Spirit in a physical body. Every spirit lives on when the body dies. The difference is WHERE that spirit lives. Jesus came to give you the opportunity to live in an eternal heaven. Thats a gift! You can choose to accept it or reject it because He also gave you free will. However, you must accept it before you die or you’ll spend eternity in Hell – simple as that. His rules, not mine.

    It’s not a ‘myth’ there’s oodles more proof to validate the bible than disprove it. However there are also oodles of people like you who reject it outright because of the parts they don’t like.

    That’s all part of the plan you know – SATAN HATES YOU and will do anything he can to prevent you from accepting Jesus because he wants to destroy all God’s creation. JESUS LOVES YOU – Accepting Jesus doesn’t mean you have to change, Jesus will accept you just the way you are now, but the experience of true conversion probably will change you. Is that so bad? Is the thought of living in paradise forever and ever so bad? How about the thought of living in eternal torment – you can’t even imagine how bad that will be.

    CONSIDER THIS, if you believed in Jesus, and when you die you find out He was just a myth and Bible prophesy just another story out of hollywood, what have you lost? However, if you don’t believe in Jesus, and He and His word turn out to be true you’ve lost everything and will spend eternity in torment with Satan, knowing you could have had a resurrected body and be living in paradise.

    God’s word says “If you fail to warn the wicked man of his wicked ways, his blood is on your hands.” – my hands are clean, the choice is yours.

  63. Liam Catton
    30 April 2013 at 9:27 pm

    I would never EVER become religious. Think of how many lives atheism has destroyed – 0. Think of how many lives religion has destroyed – Hundreds of thousands if not more.

    I don’t believe in heaven or hell, so I’m not afraid at all if when I die the ‘pearly gates’ won’t open for me. I believe you exist in spirit in the real world and if not in spirit, then not at all. I believe I will not end up as an angel with a gold halo above my head above the clouds.

  64. Abigail
    30 April 2013 at 9:38 pm

    You’re wrong about Athiesm, it has destroyed countless thousands of lives, yours included. There is a big difference between religious and having faith, but that’s another thing you don’t understand, how could you understand it ….

    Sad part is ‘you’ll find out’, but you won’t be able to say nobody warned you. Besides, in Hell no-one will be heard over the screaming!

    Inspite of your rejection of Him, Jesus still loves you immeasurably! If you remember nothing else from this blog, remember that.

  65. Tim Bennett
    30 April 2013 at 10:35 pm

    Abigail, there is very little proof of god existing, or of the Christian faith beign the truth. There is a massive amount of scientific evidence to suggest evolution and other counter-Christian theories being factual. It is obviously ridiculous for us to debate theology, especially since we are both so stuck in our ways of thinking. The only thing I want you to take away from me in this debate is this:
    My being athiest and allowing people to believe what they believe is much more kind than people like you telling people like me that we are going to burn in hell for being athiest, for being gay, for being whatever you disagree with. You have no idea who I am, what values I hold dear, how selfless I am and how far out of my way I will go to help somebody. There is a big difference between being Christian and being Christ-like, and I for one would rather be christ-like that Christian. It means that I help others rather than judge them, I am kind rather than bigoted and that I would rather be any day.

  66. Liam Catton
    1 May 2013 at 12:50 am

    Abigail, I don’t think you understand what I mean. I don’t mean destroyed like ruined, I mean destroyed like killed. Sure, atheism somehow, some way must have destroyed a few thousand people. But that means nothing compared to the countless battles and wars between countries, faiths and settlements because of religion being enforced. Off the top of my head, the Republic of Ireland’s people being forced to become Protestant or else scum on society’s shoe.

    I don’t believe or care that god loves me, I don’t love him back. I don’t believe in any religion, and I never will. Religion is disgusting. I don’t even believe god created marriage, one of the earliest known existances of marriage was in Pagan village times, where marriage ceremonies of all types of relationships were celebrated.

    Let’s hope you die soon though Abigail, so you don’t have to pay tax for the thousands of abortions every year. There’s always a silver lining.

  67. Abigail
    1 May 2013 at 12:52 am

    On the contrary TIM, there is a huge amount of evidence of the existence of God, but you have to have your eyes and ears open to receive it. Many people who have studied the bible in an attempt to prove it false have been convinced by the overwhelming evidence…. but again, you have to have your eyes and ears open to receive it. There’s nothing that blinds a person to the truth of God’s existence more than sin and a proud heart, (not my words but God’s).

    Thousand of years before Christ prophets wrote of His both dead and resurrection, under the influence of the Holy Spirit. EVERY one of those prophesies have come to pass exactly as the bible said they would.

    God says in His word – ” He who seeks me with his whole heart will find me.” Have you ever done that Tim? Likely your answer will be that you never had any interest in doing so. Most of the world thought the earth was flat too, until they explored it and found out it was round. I use dot be like you and state there is no heaven or hell, I discovered I was wrong!

    The destiny you choose is not up to me, God doesn’t ask me to persuade you or anyone else, He simply asks me to speak the truth about HIm.

    I am glad to hear that you are kind, so am I. I care deeply about people, about the poor, about the oppressed and about injustice. I volunteer many hours of my time every week and donate many dollars of my income. However that doesn’t make me Christlike, it just makes me a good person. But being a good person won’t save my soul or yours.

    Jesus said ” I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through me.”
    The Bible states that “God loved the world so much that He gave His only son, that whoever believes in Him (Jesus) will have eternal life”. What you do with that is up to you Tim. But whether you believe it or not does not change the fact that there will be a judgement day and on that day you will have no defense if you don’t have Jesus. I sincerely wish you well.

  68. Abigail
    1 May 2013 at 12:59 am

    Whoa LIAM! – that’s a hateful thing to say, saying to someone, “Let’s hope you die soon”. Are you really THAT hateful. Don’t you know that a statement like that puts a curse on yourself? You really are a lot more ignorant than you first let on. It’s amazing how the Truth about God will bring out a person’s true colors. If you are THAT threatened about your own mortality you would do well to get on your knees now and beg forgiveness…. but we both know you won’t. My eternity is in God’s hands and I am secure in His love. If I do die soon it just means I will be in paradise even sooner and the thought doesn’t scare me one bit. How about you, are you afraid to die? Sounds like it to me!

  69. Daniel
    1 May 2013 at 7:28 pm

    Liam,

    Atheism killed in the order of 250 Million people in the 20th century. This was between Hitlers Nazi Germany, the Russian Communist state, and China under Maoism/Communism.

    That’s not counting the ongoing deaths caused by abortion which is directly the result of the adoption of atheistic values which teach essentially that a baby in the womb is just a parasitic growth of tissue.

    You can’t label the judeo-christian ethic as barbaric either as just about every nation and culture except those that were Christian, or Hebrew/Jewish practiced one or more of infanticide, infant or child sacrifice or cannibalism. Christianity and GOD’s demands for death only as punishment for heinous crime. This also holds a an explaination of GOD’s demands for the wiping out of the nations of Canaan by the Isrealites both understandable (to prevent them being corrupted and adopting the same heinous practises of those pagans). The biblical narrative indicates it was not Isreals expansionist plans but Gods that drove them. It also makes clear the the Israelites were disobedient and didn’t wipe out the nations as they were instructed, and within a few generations they did contrary to GOD’s command also begin adopting these same heinous practices including human sacrifices, incurring God’s wrath and judgement upon them. Perhaps you should actually read the bible and sought ot understand why GOD did these things rather then just accuse HIM of being pernicious and vengeful.

    In any case, it seems that GOD, and the judeo-christian ethic is a much more gracious and merciful approach to morality then Atheism is when you actually look at the historical evidence.

    And bringing this back full circle… A little paddle of the bottom in correction will produce a sweet child which is always better then a tyranical undisciplined shit that will forever remain unrestrained and unwilling to learn.

    Daniel.

  70. Abigail
    1 May 2013 at 10:00 pm

    Amen!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *