Marriage Bill does not have the numbers
Tony Milne predicts (and knowing where he works I suspect he has a good basis for his predictions) that there will be at least 71 votes against the United Future Marriage Bill.
I presume Brian Donnelly is the one NZ First vote against. Will be interesting to see how the National MPs vote on this.
Personally I don’t see this bill as big an issue as the CIvil Unions Bill. This bill will not really change anything (which is why I would vote against it) and is just United Future trying to win some brownie points claiming “they saved marriage”.
Rather ironic that instead they will now be responsible for Parliament rejecting their definition of marriage – an act which ironically could lead a future Supreme Court to change its interpretation of the Marriage Act.
December 7th, 2005 at 8:24 am
This is the UF party trying to regain the christian fundamentalist vote they lost in the last Parliament. I would happily vote agaist this as well because it is closing the door after the horse has bolted and Dunny deserves to be shafted.
December 7th, 2005 at 9:41 am
The definition of marriage bit is merely unnecessary – it’s the letting people discriminate in favour of marriage that’s the fundamentalist part.
Good riddance to it.
December 7th, 2005 at 10:12 am
“This bill will not really change anything”
I disagree.
1. It would stop (or at least make it much more difficult) either the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court saying that the Marriage Act applied equally to same sex couples (Canadian jurisprudence, and a recent decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa suggest it is probably a matter of when, not if).
and
2. It would change the Bill of Rights so that measures taken to advance marriage were not discrimination (a massive change).
Whatever one thinks of these, they’re not nothing.
December 7th, 2005 at 10:31 am
Lets get real here – Marriage has been under attack from leftoid utopian thinkers since Karl Marx.
Since the late seventies they have made great inroads and now most marriages aren’t worth the paper they are written.
The people who promote Gay Marriage (which should be an oxymoron) are not committed to marriage as an institution anyway.
Sadly in NZ even the National part is badly infected with this nonsense.
December 7th, 2005 at 11:08 am
Graeme, you make a lot of intelligent comments regarding legalistic matters, but I’m interested to know what your position on this bill is.
December 7th, 2005 at 11:09 am
I think it’s very sad that the marriage bill will not pass. It’ll be one of those tests as to how far down the socialist hellhole we’ve fallen.
December 7th, 2005 at 11:18 am
I think it’s very sad that the marriage bill will not pass. It’ll be one of those tests as to how far down the socialist hellhole we’ve fallen.
Hmmmm. Doesn’t something like the Marriage Bill = increased state legislation of morality = ‘furthur down the socialist hellhole’?
I’m still confused as to how legislation like Civil Unions and Prostitution Law Reform, which DECREASE government intervention in peoples lives, are seen as creeping socialism.
December 7th, 2005 at 11:25 am
Graeme, you make a lot of intelligent comments regarding legalistic matters, but I’m interested to know what your position on this bill is.
December 7th, 2005 at 11:27 am
December 7th, 2005 at 11:34 am
By socialism Lucyna means liberalism, but uses socialism so as to bring to mind Soviet gulags rather than the civil rights movement. But last time I checked, liberalism was about the latter, not the former. How Orwellian.
December 7th, 2005 at 11:36 am
Dim, if I actually thought you were interested in the “Why?”, I might take the time to explain it.
Oh, what the heck. To “succeed”, socialism needs a complete unravelling of society. A disconnect from the past so that we all can be “socialised” into the new order. Families are seen as the enemy, because they provide continuity, links to the past, and a higher call on people’s allegiances than the state does. Marriage is one of the definitions of the old order, if it can be eroded (and maybe in the future banned like the Swedish feminist party hoped to do), then the state can have more power over individuals lives. They do think this whole process will take centuries, probably if it was done too fast then more people would protest and/or rebel.
December 7th, 2005 at 11:44 am
“It would stop (or at least make it much more difficult) either the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court saying that the Marriage Act applied equally to same sex couples ”
The Court of Appeal in NZ already decided this in 1998. The judges couldn’t interpret the existing Marriage Act to include same-sex couples in the Quilter case, and said that it was up to Parliament to change the law if that’s what they wanted to do. Parliament has changed the law to provide a form of recognition for same-sex couples – by creating civil unions, not by extending the definition of marriage. That makes it even harder to argue that Parliament intended to allow same sex marriage.
December 7th, 2005 at 12:05 pm
If UF was really serious about “saving marriage”, I wonder when the private member’s bills abolishing no-fault divorce, criminalising adultery and premarital intercourse, re-stigmatising children born out of wedlock and repealing any legal recognition of de facto partnerships will hit the ballot? The Marriage (A Once-Only Deal If You’re Straight, Fuck The Rest of You Perverts) Bill has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?
(As a sidebar: It’s ironic that some of the loudest opponents of same-sex civil marriage – both here and abroad – get highly defensive when their marital -and extra-marital – histories are put under the spotlight.)
Fred:
Don’t try and make any sense of what folks like andrei are going on about – that’s just an express train to the rubber room. I’m sure his head would explode if he actually read what gay and left-wing opponents of same-sex marriage have to say on the subject. Apparently, folks like me are ‘homo-cons’ buying into the repressive institutions of patriarchal, Euro-centric homophobic late-capitalist society instead of smashing them… blah blah blah. Yet another case where you need DNA tests and an electron microscope to distinguish the loony left from the rabid right.
Having said that, I’m personally no more offended by Larry Baldock putting up this stupid bill (which should die a miserable and lonely death to peals of derisive laughter) that I was by the rhetorical contortions of CUB supporters who stood up in the House and said they supported equality for gay and lesbian citizens of this country – but not too much. You know, genuine marriage equality was just going too far. At least Baldock is upfront and unapologetic in his belief that civil marriage is a straights-only club.
December 7th, 2005 at 12:39 pm
Lucyana, you’re a bit of an odd cookie aren’t you? You really think there’s a secret cabal of socialists who actually have a plan that extends over hundreds of years and is intended to DESTROY FAMILIES? Are they vampires? Do they live on the flesh of unborn infants?
I come from a family where marriage is very much not the norm. Of my siblings only one is married. My parents did marry – but I remember the wedding. I certainly have little intention of marrying.
And you know what? We’ve not been destroyed as a family. Fundementally, marriage isn’t overly popular with us because we’re not religious. Without the religious underpinnings there’s actually little genuine foundation for marriage beyond what people in long-term relationships with each other already have…. and some legal benefits. If you think it hurts a family more to see a divorce after three years than a long-term de-facto relationship break up after fifteen then you’re sadly mislead.
Family does not equal marriage. You may have made the mistake of thinking it does, but from those of us in the “no marriage” department… our families are just fine, thanks. We just don’t need a piece of paper to prove it to people.
And the irony of you lot complaining about “destruction of families” via the introduction of civil unions for gay people… well… yeah. Surely that would be “creation of families”, no? After all, having a piece of paper makes you a family doesn’t it…?
December 7th, 2005 at 12:56 pm
To “succeed”, socialism needs a complete unravelling of society. A disconnect from the past so that we all can be “socialised” into the new order. Families are seen as the enemy . . . Marriage is one of the definitions of the old order, if it can be eroded . . . then the state can have more power over individuals lives. They do think this whole process will take centuries . . .
I think we’re deep in Phillip K Dick/Jorge Louis Borge territory now (y’all have read “Tl
December 7th, 2005 at 1:07 pm
Lucyna’s from sir humphrys…that’s all you need to know….
December 7th, 2005 at 1:42 pm
heh when is someone going to out Sir Humphreys as the parody site it surely is.
The joke has gone on long enough.
December 7th, 2005 at 1:46 pm
To tell the truth in some ways I think it is regretable that the state is involved in Marriage at all.
But whether you like to admit it or not children who are brought up by both biological parents tend to do better in life than those who are not. The evidence for this is overwhelming!
This is why marriage as a social institution exists in the first place. That is to provide a stable and nurturing environment for the raising of children. To be sure some societies have played around with models other than the monogamous one man, one woman model. However, if you think about it, such societies tend to be pathological e.g Saudi Arabia.
I have no interest in interferring with anyone elses private arrangements. You can sleep with, make any financial arrangement, make any vows you like with anyone or anything you choose.
JUST DON’T HIJACK an institution that other people hold sacred and holy.
December 7th, 2005 at 1:52 pm
From Graeme: 1. It would stop (or at least make it much more difficult) either the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court saying that the Marriage Act applied equally to same sex couples (Canadian jurisprudence, and a recent decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa suggest it is probably a matter of when, not if).
I don’t think so. Under the Human Rights Act it says that it is illegal to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation, and that is exactly what this bill is doing and that’s what I think the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court would say. The whole reason for Civil Unions to come into force is because of the Human Rights Act.
From Dim: I’m still confused as to how legislation like Civil Unions and Prostitution Law Reform, which DECREASE government intervention in peoples lives, are seen as creeping socialism.
I completely agree on this one, dim.
December 7th, 2005 at 2:04 pm
Lucyna is correct in her assessment. Rather than debate her tho it seems that people will engage in ad hominem.
If you actually read Marx, Engel et al you will understand that they were hostile to marriage. They felt that society could bring up children better than their parents and that the children could be better inculcated in the ‘values’ of society. Of course the values they sought to impart were their values, not necessarily and probably not the parents values.
And so it is in the peoples paradise of NZ. My kids are taught all sorts of garbage at school (particularly in social studies and sex education) that I don’t agree with. Luckily I am able to present my point of view. And this is why the social engineers are doing their darndest to get people like me out of the picture.
December 7th, 2005 at 2:10 pm
“JUST DON’T HIJACK an institution that other people hold sacred and holy.”
Has it occurred to you that gay people might also find marriage sacred and holy, and that might be why some of them want to get married? Just a thought.
December 7th, 2005 at 2:22 pm
Daniel,
You are right – the Human Rights Act 1993 does make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, however, you may be aware that the Human Rights Act only applies in certain spheres (e.g. employment, housing, provision of goods and services) – outside these spheres discrimination is not illegal.
I do not believe that marriage is one of the spheres specified in the Human Rights Act (though it certainly is one of the grounds).
You will also be aware that in the Quilter case the court of appeal said that restricting marriage to between one man and one woman, was not discrimination. Now this certainly surprised a lot of people – it used the Wayne Mapp-type argument that said neither a straight male nor a gay male may marry another male (whether straight or gay) so gay people are treated the same as straight people (it has a sort of perverse logic).
What Gordon Copeland will argue this bill is doing is preventing (without Act of Parliament) any person (gay, straight, or somewhere in between) from being married to a person of the opposite gender and that his law applies equally to everyone – treating no one differently.
And yes, a major reason for the Civil Union Act was the Human Rights Act, but it was the section of the Human Rights Act which said you can’t discriminate on the basis of marital status that was in issue, not the section that said you can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation.
December 8th, 2005 at 8:56 am
Jimmy, if I wanted to bring to mind Soviet Gulags, I would be far more direct. When I say Socialism, I mean Socialism. “Liberalism” has been taken up by Socialists as a mechanism to disconnect us from our past and thousands of years of civilisation.
Dim, all the Marriage Bill does is confirm the status quo so that it cannot be changed in the future. Yes, the horse has already bolted, as Craig points out (no fault divorce etc), and quite possibly its a little too late. I really see this more as a test on the National MPs. Do they as a possible alternative government have a clue as to how the Socialists are working to entrench themselves over time. My guess is no – listening to Catherine Rich this morning on the radio does not give me hope at all.
You ask me how I know all this – I read history, Dim. I also believe in knowing my enemy.
err…, You’ve never talked to Communists, have you? They’re completely off the planet, and do believe in this concept of socialist change over generations. I would not be surprised if many are pretenting to be Socialists (since that is now socially acceptable). As an aside, there is a book out that does equate Socialism/Communism to Vampirism. I haven’t read it myself.
You don’t think marriage was important – well, I didn’t either when I was younger.
There is a part II to why this bill is important. It’s to do preventing the Government from being able to legislate in the future what religion can and cannot do. The greatest enemy of Communism is the Roman Catholic Church. It’s independant, has it’s own state and has links to a great number of people all over the earth. They have been opposed since the 1800’s. The Anglican Church and various fundie groups are not seen as a threat because they are either controlled by the state or too small and disconnected to worry about.
December 8th, 2005 at 9:14 am
“You’ve never talked to Communists, have you? They’re completely off the planet, and do believe in this concept of socialist change over generations.”
You clearly have much in common! Maybe you should get together for drinks? Or are they all such Secret Vampire Communists that you haven’t actually managed to find any?
December 8th, 2005 at 9:20 am
Can’t oppose them if I stay on the planet, err..
But getting together for drinks … just a bit too much contact for my liking.
December 8th, 2005 at 9:30 am
Isn’t it wondrous the way Lucyna makes these grand sweeping statements without a shred of empirical evidence to back them up. If you analyse what she says it really is just reds under the bed hogwash. I mean last week you were trying to convince us that the Soviet Union was about to invade the West until dear old Ronnie road in on his white charger. The only problem was you had completely misread your source. Next time you read a history book Lucyna put your glasses on 1st.
December 8th, 2005 at 10:19 am
Ouch, LMD. Feel better now?
December 8th, 2005 at 11:27 am
Guns and Communism: http://www.lewrockwell.com/poe/poe5.html
The above link is a starting point for anyone interested in how Socialism is dismantling society. LMD, hear that? It’s a starting point. It’s not proof – it’s an explanation. You either believe it’s possible and go on to read more, or you disbelieve it entirely. It’s up to you – it’s not up to me to convince you or make you believe. Something I think you got more that a little confused about on the previous topic you mentioned.
December 8th, 2005 at 11:43 am
Lucyna, that’s about as plausible as the “Bush just likes seeing dead Arabs” brigade. If you read that and believed it was possible then it explains a lot about your somewhat paranoid state of mind.
December 8th, 2005 at 12:00 pm
The fact that marriage has to be defended legally is an appalling indictment on the screwed up society we live in. This has to be sheeted home to the moral midgets that inhabit our government.
The idea of having sex with a man is so bad I cant even imagine how women do it. The idea of making a marriage out of two males is ridiculous and as such just deserves ridicule. Instead what do we get? The Labour government and the ‘progressive’ sisterhood elevating these screwed up arrangements to the level of liberation and freedom. Their thinking just makes
most people puke.
December 8th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
The mind boggles Lucyna especially if you check out the rest of the postings on lewrockwell. I mean from those paranoid ravings to Tom Engelhardt is a pretty wide brief where is the guy coming from????
But sorry I have to agree with err. It’s not exactly plausible and trying to tie it all into the socialists are dismantling society is just so much silly waffle.
December 8th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
The idea of having sex with a man is so bad I cant even imagine how women do it.
Gay men seem to feel the same way about having sex with women. They seem to be born that way, just as the rest of us were born straight.
Instead what do we get? The Labour government and the ‘progressive’ sisterhood elevating these screwed up arrangements to the level of liberation and freedom. Their thinking just makes
most people puke.
They DID just win an election . . .
The idea of making a marriage out of two males is ridiculous and as such just deserves ridicule.
Tell me why. Go!
December 8th, 2005 at 12:31 pm
dim,
-1 B.s. Its behaviour, just like adultery, rape, paedophilia. Its a choice. It has been ridiculed since the beginning of time and only become acceptable in societies that are about to tip up.
-2 yep they did win an election and most people are puking
-3 see -1
December 8th, 2005 at 12:36 pm
It’s such a nonsense argument. I think you will find that those countries with liberal policies on gay marriage are no more in danger of their societies unravelling through some socialist subterfuge. In fact you will probably find their outcomes in terms of education and quality of life especially for their children are somewhat higher than most other countries you care to compare them with.
December 8th, 2005 at 12:36 pm
Dim, that should be:
They did JUST win an election… hardly the mandate that they had last time.
December 8th, 2005 at 12:48 pm
Hi George,
Its behaviour, just like adultery, rape, paedophilia. Its a choice.
Eating and sleeping is also ‘behaviour’, so that doesn’t really help your argument.
It has been ridiculed since the beginning of time and only become acceptable in societies that are about to tip up.
You mean societies like Periclean Athens, Renaissance Italy or Meiji era Japan? You might also be interested to know that many of the earliest cave drawings (eg lascaux) decpict homosexual acts. Its also widespread amoung other animal species (eg. male penguins, who mate for life and use a stone as a surrogate egg).
The widespread presence of a trait across multiple species usually indicates its significant in an evolutionary sense – the juries still out on why homosexuality is important to a species survival, but there are plenty of theories around.
yep they did win an election and most people are puking
I think what you mean here is that most people you know are puking. I suggest that your circle of friends is not very representitive of the rest of New Zealand. But here’s a thought – if you know more than, say, a couple of dozen guys, its extremely likely that several of yuor friends are gay.
December 8th, 2005 at 12:52 pm
“It’s such a nonsense argument. I think you will find that those countries with liberal policies on gay marriage are no more in danger of their societies unravelling through some socialist subterfuge. In fact you will probably find their outcomes in terms of education and quality of life especially for their children are somewhat higher than most other countries you care to compare them with.”
On the contrary LMD. In the countries that have had Gay marriage for the longest not only are the marriage rates way down but so are the birth rates. The native populations of countries such as Holland are not even reproducing at a rate which ensures their replacement. In fact even in the USA the North Eastern Liberal states have a far lower birth rate than the conservative southern and western states.
Funnily enough this phenomina occurred when the Roman empire declined and fell.
December 8th, 2005 at 1:08 pm
They’ll just have to import a few Muslims then Andrei. That should take care of the problem.
December 8th, 2005 at 1:13 pm
They’ll just have to import a few Muslims then Andrei. That should take care of the problem.
You might like to check out world fertility rates Andrei. I don’t see that they support your argument.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
December 8th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
“Its behaviour, just like adultery, rape, paedophilia. Its a choice.”
OK, let’s try again George. What exactly is your objective proof of this particular chestnut? So far your argument has gone:
“!”
“Can you back that up with some reasoning?”
“!”
I’m expecting another one along any minute now…
December 8th, 2005 at 1:23 pm
Just checked LMD
Netherlands fertility rate (births/woman) 1.66
Since replacement rate would require something a little over 2 my claim is vindicated.
Interestingly enough the USA’s fertility rate is 2.08 which must be quite close to replacement rate.
December 8th, 2005 at 1:35 pm
Interesting to read those fertility rates. Good luck trying to correlate gay marriage with it in a meaningful way. You’d have a lot more luck if you tried relating it to poverty and lack of education, they seem to be good drivers of fertility in a nation judging by that list…
December 8th, 2005 at 1:48 pm
Italy: 1.28 children born/woman
reference
Lots of gay marriages and non-religious people there…
December 8th, 2005 at 1:55 pm
“Lots of gay marriages and non-religious people there…”
yeah right, all that stuff they get up ti in the Vatican.
December 8th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
Opposing same-sex marriage is also a choice. It’s just, in my opinion, something the state shouldn’t be trying to get its hands in. You can go live in a sheltered Christian family values community and that’s entirely fine. Just don’t, in your infinite morality, try to force others from making a lifestyle choice that does not affect you in the slightest. Marriage can be something “sacred and holy” to you, but this can still occur if the state doesn’t try to impose its own morals.
December 8th, 2005 at 3:06 pm
you lefties asked for explanations on the links between communism/ socialism / feminism and the deliberate undermining of the family and when you are provided with it (see lucyna’s link above), you all resort to a kind of electronic version of the closed nostril dismisive snort made famous by the likes HC and MW. This is about the level of debate that we have come to expect from you guys.
If there is a lie , a misquote an exageration, or even a lapse of logic in the link, then point it out.
December 8th, 2005 at 3:45 pm
“If there is a lie , a misquote an exageration, or even a lapse of logic in the link, then point it out.”
Just one? Holy fish in a barrel, batman!
I’ll give you a hint. Read his rant about Clinton attacking “radical freedoms”, and explain to me why the traditional social structure of very rigid family norms was more free than (or even as free as ) the current arrangement where individuals choose their own family relationships, etc.
Then try to wriggle your way around the fact that the author is trying to attack Clinton for limiting freedom… while simultaneously virulently attacking people who favour increased personal freedom for people to choose their own family structures.
Essentially, when the author talks about family he says “Freedom to choose bad, social conventions and restriction of options good”. Then when he gets around to Clinton talking about taking guns off people who were enjoying shooting each other with them, the message changes to “Freedom of choice good, evil police state bad”.
He seems unable to make his mind up. On the one hand he’s arguing that people should be free to carry around tools designed to put life-threatening holes in other people because people are somehow inherantly responsible, but on the other he argues that giving people freedom to choose their own relationships with each other is dangerous and threatens the fabric of civil society.
?!
Then he somehow tries to tie this back to a single book written by a single feminist author and a single opinion piece published in Newsweek to show that actually femenism is a giant conspiracy to impose a police state.
If you can’t spot the many, obvious failings in this piece of writing you deserve all the derisive snorting you get, mate.
December 8th, 2005 at 4:31 pm
I love this thread. It’s quite surreal. Particularly the comment about the Catholic Church being opposed to communism (since 1800…how prescient). I mean, no shit Sherlock, just how many opiates embrace communism, tell me?
You know, Christians these days have managed to put me right off being a Christian. Thanks guys, at least Sundays are my own again.
December 8th, 2005 at 4:32 pm
err
Yes, I concede the point on freedom to choose marriage structures .
I take it that(hope)you are trying to be funny and deliberatly sarcastic on the other points.
are you honestley trying to say that you do not believe that undermining of the family is not one of the key goals,planks ambitions of feminist?
And do you also believe that the breakdown of the family is not one of the main reasons for coninuing social dispare that we see despite 30 + years of welfarism that was supposed to fix it?
Far be it from me to stoop to the level of lefties and acuse anyone who has a different point of view from me as just being ignorant and ill informed but it absolutly beggers believe that anyone could not see anything so obvious.
By the way breath through your nose you’ll be able to snort louder and there for register your indignation even louder.
December 8th, 2005 at 4:38 pm
I would expect National MPs to vote so as to reflect the values of those who elected them. If they don’t know what those values are they should find out. It was the generally conservative heartland that elected them, not the Liberal-Libertarian righties of the city seats.Sexual diversity is largely a tenet of Socialism and a vote against the bill will aid and abet the social re-orientation policy of the Goverment…Of course if United Future were serious they would have included it in their compact with Labour. Dunne clearly wasn’t prepared to jeopadise the bauble of high personal office by doing so.
December 8th, 2005 at 5:17 pm
Its also widespread amoung other animal species (eg. male penguins, who mate for life and use a stone as a surrogate egg).
That penguin example is by now so worn out I think you can see daylight through it. You realise that the penguins in question (Roy and Silo) have since split up. It turns out that one of them was more interested in a female penguin. But behavioral patterns observed in animals does not indicate we need to adopt the same patterns. Infanticide is fairly high amongst several species. Does that mean you would eat your young? Or maybe that you should.
Just let people do what they want to; give them equal property rights and so forth. But marriage (You can substitute another word for it, that’s fine, although that is the meaning society has attached to it for the last couple of thousand years) is a classification reserved for couples with the ability to propogate the species and who are willing to accept the responsibility of a lifelong commitment to oneanother and to raising their offspring and making them into productive, useful members of society. Man and woman, simple as that.
December 8th, 2005 at 5:31 pm
err
I have a challange for you !!!
Find a leading feminist writer/protagonist that is not a commi, lefty pinko drone and I will concede that socialism and feminism are not two sides of the same piece of toast
if feminists hate marriage so much and think that it is so terrible and are so intent on destroying it why are they so intent on inflicting it onto Gays ??? do they really hate fags that much!!!
December 8th, 2005 at 5:34 pm
That penguin example is by now so worn out I think you can see daylight through it. You realise that the penguins in question (Roy and Silo) have since split up.
I didn’t have any specific penguins in mind – gay penguin couples have been observed in most zoos around the world. Kelly Tarltons has (or had) some. It’s also been well documented amoungst apes, bison, dolphins, sheep . . .
But behavioral patterns observed in animals does not indicate we need to adopt the same patterns.
I agree – but the original argument was that homosexual behaviour is an unnatural ‘chosen’ behaviour. The fact that its widespread in nature belies this.
marriage (You can substitute another word for it, that’s fine, although that is the meaning society has attached to it for the last couple of thousand years) is a classification reserved for couples with the ability to propogate the species
Just as you don’t think we should do what animals do, I don’t think we should do what society has always done. One of the good things about being human is the abilty to adapt and change our behaviour.
I also think its dangerous to categorise marriage as something that takes place between fertile couples, since you’re disenfranshising countless numbers of couples who are childless, for whatever reason.
December 8th, 2005 at 5:41 pm
“if feminists hate marriage so much and think that it is so terrible and are so intent on destroying it why are they so intent on inflicting it onto Gays ??? do they really hate fags that much!!!”
Wow, that’s an amazingly muddled piece of thinking even by local standards. Well done! Not only have you, in your own question, pointed out the absurdity of your position but you’ve also attempted to pose that absurdity as proof of some kind of evil conspiracy!
I’m impressed.
December 8th, 2005 at 5:51 pm
Find a leading feminist writer/protagonist that is not a commi, lefty pinko drone and I will concede that socialism and feminism are not two sides of the same piece of toast
I don’t think you’re quite ready for Camille Paglia, so you can run off and read all about Ayn Rand
December 8th, 2005 at 6:30 pm
Well, I live on a farm and see examples by the stock of “gay” activity regularly.
The only conclusion to my observations is
-1 They are animals
-2 They are confused
I had hoped that people were different but I’m losing that hope reading this blog.
December 8th, 2005 at 7:06 pm
“Well, I live on a farm and see examples by the stock of “gay” activity regularly.”
That’s nothing, my guinea pigs are already working on their float for next year’s Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras.
I bet you don’t even let your dog watch Queer Eye, you miserable bugger.
December 8th, 2005 at 8:43 pm
“The only conclusion to my observations is
-1 They are animals
-2 They are confused”
I’m impressed you managed to figure the first one out. How long did that take you? As for the latter, I can assume you subjected that to the same rigorous chain of deduction that lead you to the former..?
Or you’re just making unsupported assertions again, which just seems more likely. Do you actually have a rational basis for anything you say?
December 9th, 2005 at 3:59 pm
Whats interesting here is that less than a year ago, we heard over and over that Labour did not want to ammend the marriage act so that men and men could marry. But wanted to keep it the same, and so proposed civil unions as an alternative.
Now they have been asked to make this matter clear and shown for the liars they are.
Matt
December 9th, 2005 at 4:42 pm
George…Personally I doubt that homosexuality does occur in Nature except in isolated instances…The examples you and others quote is of animals being kept in captivity invariably under some stress.Homosexuality likewise is more common in prisons and in situations such as on ships where men are confined together in close quarters,than in the general populace.
December 9th, 2005 at 5:34 pm
Really Baxter. Do you want some proof or would you rather your comfortable ‘personal’ assumptions? Or maybe you could try googling ‘homosexuality in nature’.
December 9th, 2005 at 10:54 pm
Homosexuals/gay/lesbos,,,have NO BUSINESS in marriage or any other union intended for man and woman , FULL STOP!!!
And in our famulies opinion ” this is now a SICK world we live in”
December 10th, 2005 at 12:10 am
The mean fuckers certainly come out of the woodwork when marriage is discussed. ‘Normal’, if you and your family think “this is a SICK world…”, why don’t you fuck off out of it. You can find somewhere in NZ where you can live your life away from the rest of us and still live happily. The pilgrims did it, so you can always follow their lead and wait until the rest of us a scourged from the face of the planet by judgement day… then again you could maybe just accept people as people and chill out a bit.
December 10th, 2005 at 12:41 am
Here you go Normal (and all you other dirty little buggers) – make sure that you read all 92 customer reviews too!:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00028XKKM/104-4514975-5812719
December 10th, 2005 at 7:29 am
Any marriage is as strong as the two people involved want it to be. And gay marriage or civil unions of merely shacking up won’t change that. Heterosexual marriage may have problems but the cause of the problems are heterosexuals. It’s not gay relationships that cause straight men to cheat or straight women to seek a divorce. The fact is that people are looking for scapegoats. Just as the Nazis blamed all the problems of Germany on the Jews the fundamentalists blame social problems on gays especially gay relationships. Yet the social problems we faced predated any attempt to allow gays to form legal relationships.
If you see marraige in trouble look for the log in your own eye before removing the mote in your brother’s eye.
Nor can you really blame the state. Easy divorce only makes divorce easy. It doesn’t force people to divorce. Not arresting people for adultery doesn’t force people to commit adultery. Removing state force from straight relationships only makes clear what was already in the hearts of the people involved.
If there is one thing that gay people can’t be blamed for it is the state of straight marriages.
December 10th, 2005 at 8:56 am
Anyway, back to Lucyna and her ‘marxist feminists are secretly plotting to destroy marriage’ thesis.
Lucyna claims to read a lot of history books (I’d love to know the names of some of ‘em). I read a lot of history too – and I’m a firm believer in the ‘cock-up’ theory of history – it beats the conspiracy theory school any day.
And this case is no exception: Lucyna and the link she cites claims that covert legions of marxists have a secret plot to destroy marriage, and symptoms like gay marriage, single parents and a high divorce rate are symptoms of this.
So let’s ask ourselves an obvious question: why didn’t feminism happen in the Soviet Union, or Maoist China, or even back in Europe during the first socialist uprisings of the 18th century (Chartists, Paris Commune ect)? And why DID it happen in the United States and the other nations of the west which were virulently anti-Marxist?
The answer, of course, is wealth and technology. Biological technologies made it possible for women to make choices about pregnancy and fertility, automation made it possible to clean a house and cook a meal in minutes instead of hours, changes in wealth production meant that the majority of work was intellectual and took place in offices instead of physical labour that took place on farms and factories. Once it because possible for women to do the same work as men they demanded to be compensated the same as men.
Once women are able to earn the same income as men the dynamic of traditional marriage – the women looks after the house (which now only takes a few hours a week and (to many) is a lot less appealing than almost every other job out there) is obviously going to change. A women who leaves her husband at the age of thirty isn’t going to have to turn to prostitution or starve to death.
Now, all of this is pretty fucking obvious to anyone who thinks about the rise of feminism for more than a few seconds. Does any of the reds-under-the-bed brigade have a better explaination as to why women in the west are emancipated, but women in countries like Communist China aren’t?
December 10th, 2005 at 2:00 pm
Looking after a house does not take a few hours a week. If you spend any time in it, that is. And if you have children who seem scatter toys around everywhere.
As to everything else in your comment, I may write a series of posts on this, as time permits.
December 10th, 2005 at 5:36 pm
Hey WOPPO!,,we call gays “dirty Buggers” as they are apt to bugger others.
Dirty filthy scum, would be more appropriate!
December 10th, 2005 at 8:05 pm
Sure you would – if you ever crawled out from under your rock and met one.
BTW, the reason this sort of knuckle-dragging shit is tolerated around here is because dorks like normal tend to vote National.
December 11th, 2005 at 1:10 pm
Interesting how before the election Chris Findlayson told The New Zealand Herald that he believed marriage is a heterosexual institution. After the election he voted against a bill that would define marriage as a heterosexual institution.
I recall that before the election Ewen McQueen warned voters that the National Party in general and Chris Findlayson in particular lacked committment to marriage as a heterosexual institution. This claim was denied by David Farrar.
Would it be asking too much to ask for David P Farrar to apologise to McQueen and admit that McQueen was right to question Findlayson’s committment to marriage as a heterosexual institution?
December 11th, 2005 at 1:21 pm
Oh Don what a sad effort. They attaked Chris for being gay, not for his views. McQueen admitted he had no ideas what his views were on any issue.
More to the point you are off the planet if you think failing to vote for Copeland’s bill means you automatically don’t support marriage as being reserved for heterosexuals. A number of MPs who voted against Copeland’s bill said they dodn’t support gay marriage.
December 11th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
WOPO, ive always been a National voter, and indeed a young National way back in the 1970s, when it was commonplace for gays to get a good kicking, its a pity all that has stopped.
Anyway it wont be long until this leftist liberal gay swinging govt is out, and we may return to a more normal way of family life and values.
The sooner all this gay lib shit is put back in the closet where it belongs ,the better for all god fearing family folk.
December 11th, 2005 at 7:03 pm
If you believe that marriage is a heterosexual institution why you would not vote for the first reading of a bill before parliament that defines marriage as a heterosexual institution?
Technical reasons don’t apply here -if there is a problem with the drafting that can always be fixed at the select committee stage.
You are right that Chris Findlayson is not the only National MP to say they support heterosexual marriage then vote against it. Pansy Wong said (during the debate on the Civil Unions Bill) she supported the traditional view of marriage being solely between a man and woman.
It turns out that she also was either lying or has changed her mind because she also voted against the recent marriage bill.
Why is it that Pansy Wong and Chris Findlayson did not say before the election that they do not support marriage being exclusively heterosexual?
If they had done so they would appear more consistent and/or honest than they look now.