Congrats Tim & Ramon
July 28th, 2007 at 3:52 pm by David FarrarSince congratulations to Tim Barnett and Ramon Maniapoto who will be having a civil union in November.
Ramon is a lovely nice guy who I doubt anyone could say a bad word about. And I’ve always found Tim a very decent approachable guy whom I’ve enjoyed working with on various issues.
Tim and Ramon have been together for six years and now want to make a formal life long commitment to each other. I’m pleased they can now do so and have their relationship recognised.
Tags: New Zealand
July 28th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Here, here. Congratulations to Tim and Ramon.
Vote:July 28th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
<p>Good luck to them, of course. However I still can’t understand why homosexuals have to parade their sex openly by means of a Civil Union. </p>
<p>Basically if they live together etc that’s fine by me, they reside in Christchurch and are often seen on the streets together. But why must these people have to trumpet their circumstances openly and with PRIDE on the pages of the Press?</p>
[DPF:It isn't parading their sex. It is parading their commitment, just like marriage is about commitment not sex]
Vote:July 28th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
who cares? people get *married* all the time.
Religion and politics of individuals aside, there is no difference between “civil union” and “marriage” in the eyes of the law. Why the distinction/ different terminology? Call a spade a spade.
Vote:July 28th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
I am not a religious nut.
However I have the firm opinion that procreation and socialization of children within the family provide the sole justification for the marriage institution’s unique status in society. Even in today’s world with relaxed standards, it is an oxymoron to speak of a “homosexual marriage”.
Tim and Ramon can just live together as they have been – are there particular legal or inheritance reasons why homosexuals must perform a civil union?
[DPF: Well when you ban infertile couples from marrying, then talk to me about not having civil unions]
Vote:July 28th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
No congrats from me, sorry..
Vote:I have nothing against either of them personally, but homosexual ‘marriage’ is a sham.
You already knew I’d say that though.
July 28th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
While I am not a lawyer, it seems to me that there needs to be legal protection for people who share assets – as in any partnership whether it be a business or social relationship. The civil union/ marriage defines the legal rights of the partners in those social relationships. Marriage also defines the responsibilities of fathers to their children for example (this is the whole point of the institution originally as far as I can make out). The fact that people also chose not to sign the piece of paper formalising these rights has meant the law has had to circumvent this and afford people those marriage rights after a certain period of living together in a de-facto relationship. In essence all these people are “married” in the sense of sharing assets and being protected under the law.
What people in society view of the legitimacy (in the non legal sense of the term) of such relationships is beside the point. The legal rights aspect -whatever the sexual orientation, or whether people formalise their marriages or not – is important.
Vote:July 28th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Marriage is about both commitment and that can include a variety of family units. I tend to call a childless couple a ‘family’. Same of a single parent and their children. Perhaps I’m just a little too relaxed about the definition of ‘family’. Gay parents are still parents; the families they raise and commit to are still families. They look happy on the Fairfax page. Good for them, they deserve to have their relationship recognised in law. As far as I am concerned they are legally becoming a family.
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 12:13 am
DPF, The inability of two members of the same sex to procreate is not equivalent to the inability of infertile couple to procreate, except superficially. Which is what your argument is.
[DPF: No superficial is not recognising love and commitment as universal regardless of sexual orientation]
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Congratulations to Tim and Ramon.
Vote:I think it is great that they love each other so much that they want to make their lifelong committment public , just as any other couple would.
I can understand those who might have reservations over the M-word, but if marriage was about procreation, they many straights should not qualify, like Charles and Camilla, Helen and Peter.
Not for anyone to wish Tim and Ramon the best is churlish in the extreme.
What do these people want? The pair to go frolicking around seedy saunas and bars?
July 29th, 2007 at 7:31 am
Live and let live. Good luck to Ramon and Tim.
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Our individual rights set NZ apart from all the many loser countries.
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 8:54 am
[DPF: No superficial is not recognising love and commitment as universal regardless of sexual orientation]
OK fine, then if a man loved his dog, using love in the sense you have used it above, then a civil union with a dog would be acceptable? (Sexual orientation is not due any regard right?)
[DPF: Dogs can not consent. They are not intelligent beings]
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 10:46 am
The inability of two members of the same sex to procreate is not equivalent to the inability of infertile couple to procreate, except superficially.
Translation: I know my argument has a gaping hole you could drive the Death Star through, but I don’t really have the guts to say I don’t like queers, I don’t like dykes, and I’d really, really like them to piss off and drop dead.
The simple truth is, Baba Booey, we do not now – and never have had – made civil marriage conditional on both parties passing a fertility test. Can’t have it all your own way, cherub.
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 10:48 am
And, Master Baiter, what is it you reliably bring bestiality into threads on this subject? Seriously, dude – GET PROFESSIONAL HELP.
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 11:03 am
What is extraordinary about this whole business is libertarian types who normally want the Government to butt out of individuals lives are so eager to get the Government involved in Gay peoples lives by registering civil unions.
But the real reason is of course not about “human rights” – civil unions is the latest assault on the institution of Marriage – a prime target of the left ever since Karl Marx.
Its funny that people like DPF are so eager to advance the Big Government marxist agenda but that is exactly what they are doing.
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 11:06 am
[DPF: Dogs can not consent. They are not intelligent beings]
Wow, you think the homosexual lobby is powerful, wait till the dog lover’s lobby comes after you. I showed this comment to my next door neighbour’s Alsation, and he went “arf arf bark snarl”, which my neighbour translated as a threat to take you to the Canine Rights Commision. That’s Alsations for you, never been that keen on freedom of expression.
He told me his dog went to the vets the other day, and while waiting to be seen to, struck up a conversation with another dog. He asked the other dog what he was there for. The dog said he’d inadvertently done a bit of damage to his owner, a busty and lithesome young blonde who sat holding his leash.
“Wow, how so?” said my neighbour’s dog.
“Well”, said the other dog, “my owner insists on doing the housework in the nude, and the other day, while she was on her knees wiping the floor, I couldn’t help myself and jumped on her and gave her one.”
“Heck”, said my neighbours dog, “you’re here for the snip then. Your knackers are knackered?”
“Hell no” said the other dog, “I’m here to get my toenails trimmed”
PS: Get a life Craig you insuffereable narcissist.
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Who cares really and that is how it should be. As for couples wanting children the legal parnership was supposed to provide some legal force to an essential ingredient that both parents are needed to raise children. That legal partnership is legally unenforceable so really it does not matter anymore who does it.
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 11:53 am
According to Craig’s argument because I think alcoholism, drug addiction and schizophrenia are bad things I therefore hate alcoholics, drug addicts and those suffering from mental illness.
The sheer dishonesty and intellectual incoherence of that self-serving argument should be obvious.
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Finding a companion to share your life with is one of the most basic human emotions. It is good that they can celebrate it in this way. I wish them congratulations and a happy life together. xxxxxx
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
As an interesting aside, in Japan which is notoriously intolerant of things which don’t conform to their societal norms, the elder “partner” in a same-sex relationship will sometimes adopt the other as his/her child as a legal proxy to marriage. Not sure if that then exposes them to breaking laws against incest or not but as Tim says who cares as long as they happy.
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Shawn:
Sorry, I’m just sick of the blinding intellectual dishonesty in folks who keep repeating the ‘marriage = procreation” line, but then say it’s just different when you point out that our civil law does not forbid infertile, those who use contraception or the elderly from marrying. Never has, never will.
If you want to talk about self-serving dishonesty and intellectual incoherence, I think you’ve got some of your own to address first.
And just for the record, Shawn, you might also think marriage between people of different ethnic groups, religions or significant disparities in age might be an awfully bad thing too. I’ve heard it all before, where my parents are concerned, and make no apologies for describing those people as racists and religious bigots, however elaborate their rationales were.
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Will the bride be wearing white.
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Yawn….the religious right once again bitch on about homos having rights when really all they want is their “traditional family rights” to molest their own kids as they see fit……no?
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
James
Vote:That is a most untrue and despicable inference. What you are implying is that heterosexual marriage = incest. There are heterosexual and homosexual sexual predators- that doesn’t make all gays or married couples child molestors. I know Tim reasonably well – I find him a pleasant and professional fellow even though he and I disagree on many things including homosexuality. I met Ramon once and he seemed much as David describes him and they seemed genuinely happy together. I am not a supporter of civil unions but I do not support any Christian (or non-Christian) persecution or judgement of gays. It is actually possible to have philosophical objections to homosexuality but enjoy the company and make no judgements of gay couples. I deplore the nasty put downs of the vociferous opponents of homosexuality and the aggressive in-your-face-agenda of a few radical gay activists.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Red cracked a funny! There was I thinking he was a sad, lonely, bigoted git. Turns out he might not be that sad after all.
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
pity that Tim not in the Mayoral race for Christchurch though,
Vote:we was hoping for a chance to demolish socialism in ChCh,
now it just a push over,
July 29th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
It is actually possible to have philosophical objections to homosexuality but enjoy the company and make no judgements of gay couples . . .
Assuming you know any gay couples who enjoy the company of the terminally pompous.
Congrats fellas.
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
the smell of a womens pussy is better than the smell of a mans bum, i think
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
James’ comments are further proof that “liberals” can be just as bigoted as “conservatives”.
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Damn it, marriage for gay couples should be made compulsory.
Out there we have some bastards getting away
Vote:with not being nagged, it is not a fair go on we
who forgot the odd birthday.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Sheesh talk about bringing out all the crazies!
Love like this should be celebated no matter what the sexual orientation. What they get up to in their bedrooms is nobodies business but theirs, a bit silly that some people think they can cast opinons on an individuals sex life.
If David had this on 2 hot lesbians getting married I bet he would of got a better reception
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Not sure who said it but a quote that I think applies to this is “a society that accepts homosexuality is a society that accepts anything.”
Vote:What is the basis of asserting, that homosexuality is a right and proper thing that we should be celebrating? Those on this blog to think so, where or what is your authority?
I know your authority is not the Bible — but is there a book somewhere that says homosexuality is a good thing? Judging by the comments on this page people think that homosexuality is a good thing and what people do in their own bedroom is no one else’s business. I suspect the comments of some — “who cares what people do?”, is very prevalent among the contributors to this blog.
What if God cares about what you do? God seems to care about what we do. And he warns us repeatedly in the Bible against homosexuality. We should not be supporting it — it is wrong. And it is harmful to all who practice it.
July 30th, 2007 at 10:04 am
I know your authority is not the Bible — but is there a book somewhere that says homosexuality is a good thing?
Some of us are autonomous creatures with independent minds, and don’t need a book to tell us how to think or judge others.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Judgement and independence are good things — but how do you know that your judgement and independence is correct? What is the basis for making your judgement? Is it, it just seems okay to you? Surely we need a little bit more to go on than simply asserting our autonomy and independence. Your mind says homosexuality is okay, my mind says it isn’t. Without God and the Bible what basis do we have for making laws for example? These are not idle problems. They affect everyone because we are all part of society, we have to learn how to get along together.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 11:18 am
How typical….the religiously bigoted are forever linking Gays with “recruiting kids to their lifestyle” and paedophilia but when its casually suggested that there may be ulterior motives for the “keep it in the family” crowd they get all huffy and indignant….
Considering the levels of child sexual abuse being seen amoungst the religious its so rich for them to spout on about the suitability of others to form relationships and all that entails…
“Without God and the Bible what basis do we have for making laws for example?”
Ahhhh objective reality for starters.Its in the real world and the facts and laws set by the Universe we find ourselves in that determines what is right and wrong,good or bad for mankind to do based on the standard of Mans life and its requirements if we are to live as human beings.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 11:38 am
IMHO the only aspect Im not happy with is the “highjacking” of the term marriage. And I believe if the situation was reversed there would those who also be unhappy. The term marriage has had a certain definition in our society and it would have been preferable to have left that as it was. Apart from that good luck to Tim and Ramon and to all other same sex couples who find happiness. (gosh thats going to shock some who think we righties are all the same)
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
DPF said:
“And I’ve always found Tim a very decent approachable guy whom I’ve enjoyed working with on various issues.”
Flipping heck, he’s a Labour MP! I wouldn’t call him decent.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
James says “Ahhhh objective reality for starters.Its in the real world and the facts and laws set by the Universe we find ourselves in that determines what is right and wrong,good or bad for mankind to do based on the standard of Mans life and its requirements if we are to live as human beings.”
Vote:What does this possibly mean? Objective reality is not as easy to find as we think. For two millennia we have thought that homosexuality is wrong based on the revealed truth of the Bible. Objectively what are the facts and laws set by the universe that say homosexuality is right? Objectively one could easily make the case that homosexuality is unhealthy, leads to lower life expectancy and is useless for continuing the human race. What are the objective facts of the universe that say that homosexuality is right?
July 30th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
SOme good points –
and
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Scott, your problem here is that you’re creating a false dichotomy, that things must be either “proven right” (and therefore something to be promoted for all) or “proven wrong” (to be condemned) – ignoring the possibility that things are just plain neutral and a fact of life.
Homosexuality isn’t right, in the sense that it’s something that should be considered a universal good that we should be promoting for the entire populace. Not is homosexuality wrong, to be condemned and assaulted by bigots. It just is: some people are homosexual. Every culture has homosexuality, and it occurs across a wide range of species in nature. It’s a natural part of life, it seems. It might seem a bit illogical, but there’s many aspects of biology that don’t make a lot of sense in purely practical terms – what’s that appendix of yours there for again? Does it assist you in any way in procreating?
So, just as I’m not going to discriminate against you for having a seemingly useless appendix, I’m not going to discriminate against somebody else because they have a seemingly useless sexual orientation.
There’s no need to argue over books or arguments as to whether something is “right” – if you cannot front an objective argument with no appeals to authority that could suggest why allowing homosexuals to enjoy equal rights under the law is a bad thing then they should be given those rights. We live in a society where equality is considered the default, and there are sound arguments behind that assumption. Unless you could argue, rationally, why equality should not exist here then you need to accept that you’re not on firm ground.
Rational debate and facts-based discussion of issues is the glue that is going to provide us with common agreement. You believe in the “Revealed truth” of the bible – I don’t, and neither to many of the other residents of the planet you live on. Therefore it can never be a source of any common agreement, and you’re still obliged to defend any conclusions you’ve drawn from it.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
blah blah blah, some of you should be more concerned about your own bedroom performances or lack of – before getting into the business of what others do!
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
“Nor is this view arbitrary or idiosyncratic. It mirrors the accumulated wisdom of millennia and the teaching of every major religion. Among worldwide cultures, where there are so few common threads, it is not a coincidence that marriage is almost universally recognized as an act meant to unite a man and a woman.”
Never heard of polygamy in Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism? Or the Old Testament? Or male-male weddings in Papua New Guinea? Or Native Americans?
If you want to claim it’s the christian god’s will, so be it. I for one don’t believe in that god so generally ignore his or her opinion. But don’t claim that marriage has been between one man and one woman in close to all cultures and/or religions through all time. That’s just wrong.
Vote:July 31st, 2007 at 9:38 am
Congratulations err.. on a well reasoned argument. Your main point seems to be that equality is the default in our society and therefore homosexuals should have equality and the onus is on anyone to say why they shouldn’t have equality.
Vote:I think there are sound arguments why homosexuality is wrong. The revealed truth of the Bible, homosexuality is condemned in both the Old And New Testaments, is the foundation for Western civilisation believing homosexuality is wrong for two millennia. This is no small matter — whether we are atheist or Christian our laws are based on the Judeo Christian traditions handed down from our forebears.
So both religion and tradition argue that homosexuality is wrong. We may recently have changed the law making equality the default under human rights legislation but that does not make it right.
There is the biological fact that everyone that writes in this blog and indeed everyone in New Zealand and indeed everyone living today is the product of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. Discounting artificial reproduction techniques, what is natural is that men and women come together to produce children. This is a biological reality that is obvious to anyone of any religion.
Finally we have the testimony of the gay lifestyle — homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous, the gay lifestyle seems incredibly destructive to the human spirit.
Therefore the testimony of religion, tradition, biological reality and the destructiveness of the gay lifestyle bear witness that homosexuality is wrong. We do no one any kindness by promoting it.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Craig:
“Sorry, I’m just sick of the blinding intellectual dishonesty in folks who keep repeating the ‘marriage = procreation” line, but then say it’s just different when you point out that our civil law does not forbid infertile, those who use contraception or the elderly from marrying. Never has, never will.”
I dont see anyone here making that argument and I certainly am not. I’m not Roman Catholic for a start. I dont care whether married people choose to have children or not.
The argument that I am making is that marriage=one man and one women. Nothing dishonest about that.
“And just for the record, Shawn, you might also think marriage between people of different ethnic groups, religions or significant disparities in age might be an awfully bad thing too.”
Nope. Thats called a strawman argument. Christian defenders of marriage are not making those claims.
“and make no apologies for describing those people as racists and religious bigots, however elaborate their rationales were.”
Except your making a dishonest argument again. The only issue of concern to Christians is that marriage=one man and one women. Calling people who believe that, and who are against homosexual behaviour “bigots” is not an argument, just infantile name-calling.
Vote: