Salient interviews Jordan Carter
July 14th, 2008 at 8:01 pm by David FarrarSalient interviews Jordan Carter, who is standing for Labour in Hunua. I’m even one of the topics discussed, and Jordan is very generous with his comments.
One part I’ll quote, which I agree with:
Do you think that the struggle for gay rights has largely finished in New Zealand, do you think that the battle has been won?
No, no, I think the battle for gay rights quote, unquote, will be won when there isn’t a battle for gay rights anymore. When the idea of someone being gay is no more particular or significant than them having red hair, or them being short…
I know not everyone is there, but to me someone being gay is about as significant as them having red hair. Except of course gingas deserve to be persecuted. More seriously, when I do find out someone I know is gay, it is just a feature of who they are.
July 14th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
What if they are Gay, short and, god forbid, a Ginga as well?
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
And fat too, eh Whaleoil?
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
They might just get Robinsod excited? Be Roger Nome? I don’t know! Likely all of the above!
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
and a vegan muslim with a lisp
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Heh, I think Carter was right about bloggers (and blog commenters I suspect) just being a bunch of nerds…
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Red hair acceptance? I doubt it will take that long.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
In confused, am I allowed to criticise someone who is a ginga or not?
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
“the battle for gay rights quote, unquote, will be won when there isn’t a battle for gay rights anymore”
But but but, I’m told all the time there is no homosexual political agenda?
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Fair comment but only if he means they do not need special rights such as “hate” speech protection.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
I always wanted red hair actually…As for the gay thing, I think it’s a generational issue. Anyone born since 1960 generally has a more open mind to this.
Move on…
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
The thing is, being short or being born with red hair (or having dark colored skin for that matter) is something you do not have control over. I still do not believe that someone is “born gay”. That doesn’t mean I believe it’s always a direct choice; it may be the result of other factors – upbringing, some traumatic event, I don’t know – but people can and have “gone straight” so to speak, like Michael Glatze, who was a huge gay-rights leader and gay magazine publisher in the US. Read his testimony HERE.
I don’t believe that ‘gay’ people should be discriminated against, but God help us when being gay is seen as being as normal as having red hair.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
DPF: someone being gay is about as significant as them having red hair
I dunno, DPF, I’ve never had a redhead try to seduce me into dyeing my hair red…
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Fletch
Vote:Most Gay psycologists don’t believe people are born gay any more either, much to the disgust of gay activists, cause they got an awful lot of milage out of that one!
No, now aparrantly we are all bisexual and just have to let our “gayness” out.
Well my “gayness” must be supressed a long way down because the ole razzooo chute don’t appeal to me!!!
uuuuuurrrrrrrrhhhhh
July 14th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Whiskers
Vote:uuuuuururrrrrrrrrhhhhhhh!
July 14th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
But Fletch, being gay is as normal as having red hair. Whether it is a choice or born that way, makes no difference really to me.
Since gay men are invariably more attractive to women than straight men are, I’m glad that they don’t go straight en masse. It would badly ruin the odds for guys like me.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Gays have as many rights as anyone else now, homosexuality isn’t illegal, they can do what they like. I don’t see why there is any more battle to be had unless they want to restrict the right of free speech of others to say what they feel about it.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
first time caller calls it pretty much like it is. There is little point trying to convert people with set views. They seldom know what they are talking about and run on information imparted to them by a disapproving source.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
MacDoctor
I bet a few gay guys/girls have weathered attempts to seduce them ‘back to heterosexuality’ as well.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Heh. Someone once tried to “seduce” me. I prefer to think that I’m so damn attractive that I turn straight men gay…but I suspect he may have been gay before he tried to pick me up. I told my other half that damn pink shirt made me look gay…
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
you guys are so new age.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
expat
In the context of consenting adults, an individuals sexuality is entirely something they own, it’s their property and it’s entirely up to them how they get their jollies. Who are we to say what is right and what is wrong, even Tamaki is softening these days.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
You dont need to preach to me to make yourself feel better.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 12:12 am
“Who are we to say what is right and what is wrong”
I’m a man, and I can make that decision. You immerse yourself in progressive moral relativity if that is your want. Just don’t expect others to buy into it as meekly and weakly and mindlessly as you have. As expat says, spare us the damn sanctimonious preaching.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 12:32 am
“As for the gay thing, I think it’s a generational issue. Anyone born since 1960 generally has a more open mind to this.”
I don’t think so. “Open mindedness” as you call it is anything but that. The term in the context you use it in is really just a euphemism for political correctness. The ideas underpinning freedom of speech and thought were dealt a few fatal blows during the eighties and nineties when progressive politics and moral relativity reigned supreme and indoctrination of the young with corresponding values was near universal. Only the independent of mind were able to withstand the academic and media driven onslaught of trendy pseudo liberalism and shoal fish collectivism. Most of the teenaged chattering classes were thoroughly sucked in and now in adulthood, they still suffer from the effects of that mass brain washing. You can see them exhibiting the symptoms of their indoctrination quite frequently on this blog. (As for example First Time Caller and Burt) IMHO, people who grew to adulthood outside those eras have much more capacity to think for themselves.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 2:11 am
So, in a nutshell, if we don’t agree with Redbaiter, then we’ve been brainwashed. Yes, I’m down with that now. Et tu, first time caller? Burt? Brainwashed, y’hear?
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 4:56 am
I just dont see it needing any comment quite frankly. It sets up a “you cant cast any aspersions at me because I’m {insert monority of choice here}” mentality.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 7:26 am
Mr. Dennis: Gay couples are still not allowed to adopt and there is still a special, supposedly civic and secular right reserved only for heterosexual couples: Marriage. Gay couples have the right to mini-marriage, as do heterosexuals. Gay couples still face discrimination of numerous kinds (probably moreso than as individuals). Few gay people want to to silence those uncomfortable with homosexuality by force or legislation – that can only be done by better education and (subsequently) a less tenacious hold on anti-gay and anti-science dogma. Bruce Bagemihl (Ph.D) has written a very good account of just how normal homosexuality actuality is throughout the animal kingdom, it is reasonably indepth, largely accurate, and well worth the read: Biological Exuberance. Bagemihl even discusses studies from NZ, so it has a little local flavour – the pukeho comes up quite often. Certainly the school principal survey by Penni Cushman of Canterbury University earlier this year suggests that gay people still face some rough, ingrained discrimination when seeking employment. Things are good for gay people, gay kids are not being bashed in the streets that I know of. But to claim that gay people are not still treated differently (sometimes negatively) on the basis of their sexuality is just to demonstrate how out-of-step with the world you are.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 7:29 am
has anyone else noticed how many rightwingers are ginges..?..(ginges are rightwingers..?..)
do you have any stats on that ..?..dpf..?
and maybe phil-the-inferior could give us an update on his ongoing epic struggle of ‘self-control vs. homosexuality.’.?
phil(whoar.co .nz)
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 7:35 am
and..ratty..
what a long-winded way to say/contend that old people..(yourself?)..are in the main..homophobes..
..and that the young..in the main..(and not yourself?..)..aren’t homophobes..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 7:41 am
are you a ginga rights denier phil?
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 7:50 am
devils’ spawn..!
ginges..!
(that’s why the ginges/rightwing connection is so interesting..
..in the sense of ‘what came first?’..
..and..does one begat the other..?
..and of course..the ‘dress-sense thing kicks in here..as does the rightie s.o.h. byepass at birth..
..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 8:00 am
is that like Benson-Popes repressed commie school teacher panty slut boy cross dressing or another kind thats not quite so perverted?
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 8:15 am
“what a long-winded way to say/contend that old people..(yourself?)..are in the main..homophobes..”
You’re a dishonest coward who takes what they want from other people by threatening them with violence. You’re drug dependent because you can’t deal with reality, and you rely on the efforts of every other Nzer to provide you with food and shelter and comfort. Your thinking patterns are heavily influenced by progressive politics. If its some pseudo liberal “anti discrimination pro-tolerance” idea that is promoted by the dim witted leftists who produce Shortland street or any other mindless Hollywood style sit com/ crime series/ reality show you’re all for it. You’re only half educated and your brain has slowly rotted as a result of subliminal left wing influences and the use of mind altering substances. Its no wonder you can’t do maths and you can’t read and you use made up words like homophobe. You’re a prime example Phil of the kind of degenerate jerk who is slowly but surely dragging this country down into a sewer that it may never get out of. If I were a homosexual, the last thing I’d want is to have a person like you on my side. ..and you know what, I reckon there’d be plenty of them out there who would totally agree with me, for if they cannot see that if the kind of ideas that uncivilized barbarians like you promote continue to be ascendant, we’re all fucked. Homosexual bisexual heterosexual or any damn sexual you like.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 8:25 am
aw, phils been minus karma’ing me….diddums
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Ah but what does God think of homosexuality?
And if you think it is right, on what basis?
Most religions, including the much maligned religion of this country, think it is wrong.
Every person blogging right now is the product of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman.
Biological reality, religion and tradition all say it is wrong. Who are you to pronouce it right? And what is the basis of your authority?
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 8:31 am
nice bitch fight starting comment. *fizzz, opens beer, sits down and waits*
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Hey, we gingas are just like normal people except better looking and without souls…
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 8:39 am
crikey ratty..!
shortland st producers are ‘in on it too’..?..y’ say..?
(who knew..?..apart from you..?..)
and so..you are an old fella then..eh..?
ratty..?
an old fella/homophobe..?
..raging at ‘the injustice of it all’..
eh..?
and..no expat..
i am not a karmaite..
so..’it wasn’t me’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 8:40 am
w-hat-eva mayja loooser
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 8:43 am
“..Every person blogging right now is the product of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman..”
except..of course..the ginges..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Scott: Every person blogging right now is the product of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman.
I wouldn’t put money on that. The way some of these socialists reason I do not think sentience features in their parentage. And you know, the thought of Philip John breeding fills me with horror. I’d sleep much safter in the knowledge that he is gay, especially considering how badly he treats women he doesn’t know. At least a man could smack him upside the head when he starts flinging insults around.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 8:51 am
are you majoring in literature..?..expat..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 8:53 am
and of course..
pascal is our ‘telling’ example of the fully evolved rightwing male.
eh..?.
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 8:54 am
no. whys that?
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 8:55 am
I major in making some cash to help out my kids.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 8:56 am
And you are the telling example of a fully evolved leftwing male, Philu?
Like Nomestradamus I’d stack my credentials against yours any day.
You are a self-confessed criminal that abuses drugs and stays at home to bludge off the rest of New Zealand as part of your life-style choice.
Am I supposed to take you as a voice of reason, honesty and fairness on anything?
*laughs*
You are a fucking waste of space. Like Roger Nome.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 8:58 am
ratty..
what do you call yourself when you are assailing the airwaves..?
..doing the ‘talkback-jive’..
..don’t try and tell us you don’t..
..old fellas like you like fulminating on talkback radio..eh..?
(gives them/you a (deluded) sense of importance/relevance..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
..could i suggest calling yourself ‘dyspeptic’..?
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 9:55 am
AFter all this talk, I decided to look up homosexual on wikipedia, and after reading all about what lasbians do to girls I decided I am one, so you can call me a homo now too if you like!
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Looks like phules up for yet another beating. Surprised? Me neither.
Biological reality, religion and tradition all say it is wrong.
One of those is correct.
Tradition – wrong – With ancient Greeks and also Romans it was perfectly normal for a older man to take on a younger talented man not only as his lover but also to promote him politically. Also, all tradition started somewhere and is a constantly changing thing so to use it as a foundation for belief is wrong.
Religion – To me, personally as a heterosexual atheist, someone who believes in an entity watching over them, who listens to them when they talk out loud and is there in a big house when they all meet up on sundays is just as puzzling as a man who finds another man sexually attractive. However as long as they are all adults and are not harming anyone I fully support their right to believe in whatever they wish.
Biological reality – Hard to argue with that one. I would be interested to hear how you marry that to religion though, they seem diametrically opposed to me.
And phule – do yourself a favour and STFU would ya?
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 11:16 am
expat
11 comments from you in this thread from you make a mockery of that comment
Each to their own – anybody who disagrees with that is trying to control somebody else’s body. Nobody said we all need to agree with what other people do or share it with them, but it is their business and thankfully other people have no control how I use my body for pleasure.
Redbaiter
Do you mind if I have a wank? Is that OK with you or is that going to make me blind and require you to tie my hands in boxing gloves when you tuck me into my bed to stop me doing that?
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 11:25 am
What are the respective chances in NZ of a Gay, versus a Christian “fundamentalist”/ “evangelical” / “born-again”, of:
1. Being appointed Governor General or Chief Justice or just about any significant public office.
2. Becoming a Cabinet Minister
3. Getting a job in bureaucracy
4. Getting a job as a teacher at a State School, or as a Uni Professor
5. Getting a job as a TV News Presenter/show host
6. Becoming Editor of the Dompost, or even getting a job as a journalist, or getting an op-ed column printed
7. Being accepted as a refugee from a totalitarian regime
etc, etc……..think up new ones as you like……..
WHO is it in NZ that bigotry is working against? Remind me again, please……..
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 11:54 am
PhilBest
I agree 100%, just shows what a muppet Carter is eh. The dim-bulb isn’t content that he has complete freedom to do what he wants to do, he wants us all to approve as well. Personally I don’t give a toss how he likes his jollies, but I also accept that not everybody agrees with my position. I don’t need to start a crusade to convert them all to agree that my position is the only position anyone should take.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
“Do you mind if I have a wank?”
Flog yourself to death. Be my guest.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Well said PhilBest. There are differences in how gays are treated in society – they might be treated worse in the schoolyard but are better when they go for a job, at least in the public service. Frankly they’ve got a better deal than the rest of us.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Matty Smith:
“Mr. Dennis: Gay couples are still not allowed to adopt and there is still a special, supposedly civic and secular right reserved only for heterosexual couples: Marriage.”
I think you completely misunderstand what marriage is actually about. What is it about? The basic answer you seem to hear from the gay lobby is that marriage is some sort of “expression of love for one another” and gays want to be able to do this too.
However this idea is quite misplaced:
- Talk to most defacto couples and they will state very firmly that they don’t believe they need marriage to express their love for one another, they can do that quite happily themselves.
- There are plenty of marriages where the husband and wife don’t love each other at all, even if they once did – many people can think of one. If marriage is an expression of love, are they no longer married? The idea that marriage is an expression of love often causes divorce, as people figure they don’t love each other any more so they shouldn’t be married.
- There are plenty more marriages around the world, generally arranged, where the husband and wife never loved each other in the first place. Are they not really married? If they come to love each other over time, are they now married?
It may shock you, but marriage is not about love.
Marriage is a contractual arrangement between two parties to stay together and support each other for the rest of their lives (or at least intend to do so). The main reason for this has traditionally been to provide a stable home for raising children in, without fear that one parent might up and leave.
Although I would be the first to say that love is essential if you are contemplating marriage, at the end of the day it really has nothing to do with it. Marriage is a contractual decision. If you love each other you will just enjoy it a lot more than otherwise.
So why would a gay couple want to get married? To express their love? They don’t need to get married to do that, ask any defacto couple. Marriage is a contractual arrangement to provide a home to raise children in.
Often the same people that argue in one sentence that marriage is essential for gays to express their love for one another will argue in another sentence that it is fine for heterosexual couples to not marry, they don’t need marriage to express their love for each other. This is completely inconsistent. Decide first whether marriage is about love or not, then apply this logic consistently.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
“but are better when they go for a job, at least in the public service.”
How would the all powerful public service know if you were gay, exactly?
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
My pink tie usually gives it away …oops
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
“When the idea of someone being gay is no more particular or significant than them having red hair, or them being short”
oh I don’t know – short guys are often angry types, wanting to have a go tall, good looking guys. I reckon most of the right-wing trolls here are short and ugly. The envious little bastards can just sense that I’m tall, well muscled and handsome
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
“Frankly they’ve got a better deal than the rest of us.”
There would be some very loud, very ironic laughter from many-a-gay if they heard that. The others would be wondering what planet that is, and how they can get there.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
What a pity that Jordan still finds it acceptable to discriminate against the Exclusive Brethren and smokers.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Biological reality, religion and tradition all say it is wrong.
- Many religions are anti-homosexual. Not all are, of course – there are hundreds of thousands of religions with many, many different views on homosexuality. Many Christians are not anti-homosexual these days, religions are adaptive (otherwise they would not survive). One of the saving sub-doctrines of Christianity, one that makes the average Christian less authoritarian than some Kiwiblog Christians, is ‘Judge not lest ye be judged’.
- Tradition varies from culture to culture. Homosexuality has been accepted on-and-off by many of different cultures.
- Biology is not prescriptive, a biologist would not conclude that homosexuality is ‘wrong’. They would conclude only that homosexuality occurs, time and time again, in many species including humans. Biologists bear witness to a spectrum of sexuality much broader and richer than merely ‘male/female’ & ‘straight/gay’.
Marriage is a contractual arrangement between two parties to stay together and support each other for the rest of their lives (or at least intend to do so). The main reason for this has traditionally been to provide a stable home for raising children in, without fear that one parent might up and leave.
Why do you presume that homosexuals do not have/raise families?
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
PhilBest (1901) +2 Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 11:25 am
What are the respective chances in NZ of a Gay, versus a Christian “fundamentalist”/ “evangelical” / “born-again”, of:
1. Being appointed Governor General or Chief Justice or just about any significant public office.
2. Becoming a Cabinet Minister
3. Getting a job in bureaucracy
4. Getting a job as a teacher at a State School, or as a Uni Professor
5. Getting a job as a TV News Presenter/show host
6. Becoming Editor of the Dompost, or even getting a job as a journalist, or getting an op-ed column printed
7. Being accepted as a refugee from a totalitarian regime
etc, etc……..think up new ones as you like……..
WHO is it in NZ that bigotry is working against? Remind me again, please……..
A truly outstanding post!….well said PhilBest
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
All of a sudden ‘are you gay?’ is on job applications now…that’s a new development. If it wasn’t on the applications, then the chance would be fairly damn small, i’d imagine.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Matty Smith:
“Why do you presume that homosexuals do not have/raise families?”
Few homosexual couples could conceive a child…
Yes, some would like to adopt children. This is an area of debate. Some say that to deny them adopting a child is to deny them their human rights. Others say that to allow a child to be adopted by a gay couple is to deny the child their human rights. I fall into the latter category. This is a matter of perception that we could argue all day and never agree on, so I will try not to be drawn into an endless argument about it.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
“Some say that to deny them adopting a child is to deny them their human rights”
Then “some” are mind numbingly PC and stupid.
I always fancied being six foot five, sadly I never made it, does this deny me my human right to be the height I wanted to be?
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Gay couples have families in many ways other than adoption – surrogacy, co-parenting between gays and lesbians, children from failed attempts at heterosexuality… …gay individuals can even adopt, if they fit the criteria. Gay couples, for no apparent reason, cannot.
Others say that to allow a child to be adopted by a gay couple is to deny the child their human rights
Vote:How is a child deprived of rights by having gay parents, precisely?
July 15th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
big brov
I don’t think Jordan knows how to think for himself, don’t hold it against him. He’s a lefty….
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Matt – Won’t evil Gay Germs infect the child? And everyone knows that all gays are also paedophiles… *
On a serious note, what human right exactly is denied to a child adopted by a gay couple? I can only assume it’s the right to listen to its parents having *straight* sex in the next bedroom at odd hours of the night…
* Joke.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Mr Dennis: “Few homosexual couples could conceive a child…”
You could also flip that around and say “Few homosexuals are born to homosexual parents.” See how that works? Kids make their own paths. Maybe your sexual orientation is your own, not something your parents hand down to you…
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Hmm. Some heterosexual couples cannot have children. No adoption for them I guess.
As you say, this is a fruitless discussion – some people don’t accept that being homosexual is OK – they see homosexuals as deviants, and therefore only tolerate rather than accept them. They would prefer to deny homosexual partners the rights a heterosexual partner would have (say, the right to be at the bedside in a medical emergency, the right to be next of kin), and to deny homosexual couples the rights a heterosexual couple would have (say, the right to marry, the right to adopt children).
Of course, just because it is a fruitless discussion doesn’t mean I won’t have my say
My view is that the law should not in any way distinguish between different relationships. Social institutions such as churches, however, should be free to do so. So, a church should not be forced to perform marriages for homosexual couples. But the state should not be able to deny civil ceremonies, nor should they fail to recognise homosexual marriages that are performed in churches that happen to accept them.
Same for adoption. There are plenty of couples that I think shouldn’t be allowed to adopt children – some of them are deeply religious people, some of them are homosexual people. Equally, there are plenty of homosexual and deeply religious people that I think would be great parents. Any assessment of suitability as adoptive parents should be of the couple applying to adopt, not of the groups that they happen to be members of.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
RPM:
“Maybe your sexual orientation is your own, not something your parents hand down to you…”
Hooray, someone on the left realises what we have known all along – you aren’t born gay, it is simply a lifestyle choice. So speaking against homosexuality isn’t similar to speaking against gingas (who can’t change their genetics), but simply speaking against behaviour you don’t personally agree with. We aren’t against gays personally, we just don’t like their choice of behaviour. Thanks for recognising this.
Matty Smith:
Vote:In the same way that a child born to a single woman whose partner has run away is denied their right to a father – they do not have either a male or female parent to learn from. Now some people are forced into this situation through a parent dying, but it is undesirable and to be avoided if possible, I wouldn’t want to encourage either single or gay parenthood, for the sake of the children.
July 15th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Hooray, someone on the left realises what we have known all along – you aren’t born gay, it is simply a lifestyle choice.
Vote:Could you cite evidence for this assertion? No, I shouldn’t ask that, because you clearly only have the most cursory, fleeting understand on how genetic inheritance actually works and the multitude of ways in which a predisposition for homosexuality might be carried and passed on by heterosexual individuals. The science is in no way certain on this issue, only it leans towards there being a genetic factor involved, so it is interesting that you yourself seem to have plucked this “knowledge” from the ether.
July 15th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Matty
Vote:how can a homosexual gene be created let alone past on, do you understand that evolution REQUIRES REPRODUCTION it is not possible which is why inspite of exstensive effort no “gay” gene has been found.
July 15th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
how can a homosexual gene be created let alone past on, do you understand that evolution REQUIRES REPRODUCTION it is not possible which is why inspite of exstensive effort no “gay” gene has been found.
Having a non-reproductive subset of your population is really common across animal species. (Sterile worker ants are a trivial example). And there is no single ‘eye color’ gene either – does that mean humans don’t have differently colored eyes?
The existence of homosexuality in hundreds of other animal species suggests that its probably biological. Or are you going to argue that penguins and drosophila files make a deliberate choice to be gay?
If you are a gay identical twin then the chances of your twin being gay are roughly twice as high than if you are dizygotic – this suggests there is a genetic basis but that non-genetic factors are involved.
Having an older brother increases your chances of being gay significantly – there are various theories to account for this, mostly involving antibody reactions in the womb.
The final answer will be some combination of genetic and epigenetic factors. Its certainly not a choice. Who in their right mind would choose to be subjected to the prejudice and bigotry that gay people are treated with?
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Danyl
Vote:The funny thing is now that gay people have relative acceptance it certainly dosen’t stop them from dishing out a bit of prejudice and bigotry towards christians does it.
By the way, it would seem that many gay accademics would disagree with you on the born gay issue.
The current popular theory is that humans are bisexual, therefore for the majority it would be a choice.
July 15th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
how can a homosexual gene be created let alone past on, do you understand that evolution REQUIRES REPRODUCTION it is not possible which is why inspite of exstensive effort no “gay” gene has been found.
*sigh*
A perfect example of what I was saying. We need better science in schools so that stupid over-simplified misconceptions of genetic inheritance like above die the death that they deserve. Let’s start off really, really, really, really simply: Have you ever noticed, Shunda barunda, that some parents can produce children who do not have the same phenotypical traits as themselves, e.g. haemophilia from two non-haemophiliacs. Even though a genetic factor has not been established (genetics is a far more complicated matter than you seem to realise) there is strong evidence hinting at inheritance (funnily enough, my estranged uncle is gay, and his late uncle was gay before him, and so am I, but this is merely anecdote).
A good overview of one competing theory can be found in this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3735668.stm [EDIT: Danyl got much the same response as this in while I was posting]
The current popular theory is that humans are bisexual, therefore for the majority it would be a choice.
Vote:Popular according to whom – scientists, or “gender theorists”? I think we need not care too much about the latter most of the time.
July 15th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Danyl Mclauchlan
I don’t think it’s that complex. I think people like getting laid and they have a preference that is shaped by a variety of things, some genetic some social. Getting laid is a basic instinct, right up there with the other “F’s”
Fighting, Feeding, Fleeing and F##ucking.
That’s about it really, we like to boundaries around these things and classify them as “good” or “bad” because that’s the way humans make sense of the complicated physical and social world we live in. But really homosexuality just is what it is – a sexual preference for somebody who has the same physical anatomy as yourself.
The bible might call it wrong, it called pre-marital sex wrong and masturbation wrong. Are they wrong or are they just unacceptable according to the bible?
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Shunda barunda
The Christians have been dishing it to the gays for centuries, even as the priests were defiling the alter boys….
I’m not defending the gays for basing the church, I’m not gay or religious, but I can see why they are having their turn to repay some of the hurt inflicted over the centuries. They should be bigger than this – but we are talking about human nature and we know it’s not pure and good all the time.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Matty Smith
I think this is a highly credible position, I can see from my life experience that this is probably true. Lets face it, if a guy poked his dick through a hole in the wall to get a blow job and nobody told him it was a guy on the other side, do you think he would still enjoy it?
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Matty
Vote:Are you saying that homosexuality is part of the continuing evolution of the human race?
It is an anomally at best.
If the human race is evolving to be gay eventually we will die out as a species, correct?
Evolution is not kind to homosexuals.
I can accept that it may be a genetic possibility from what you have said, but I don’t accept that it has been a productive part of the evolution of the human species, it is just an anomally that affects a small percentage of the human population, and people shouldn’t be persecuted for it.
July 15th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
I’m not defending the gays for basing the church, I’m not gay or religious, but I can see why they are having their turn to repay some of the hurt inflicted over the centuries. They should be bigger than this – but we are talking about human nature and we know it’s not pure and good all the time.
Vote:Gay people have no right to bash Christians, but likewise, religions are not immune from criticism. If a fundamentalist Christian suffers for their opinions – for example they label a co-worker a ‘murderer’ for having an abortion and are fired – then they very much deserve what is coming to them. Most Christians are not fundamentalists, thankfully, most Christians do not have the Authoritarian Xtian Nation longings that we hear on the comment section of this blog all too often (rather ironic, considering the accusations of “Leftist Totalitarianism” &c.). Quite simply, Christians in positions of power (employers/public servants) who discriminate on the basis of their arbitrary beliefs should face discrimination in turn.
July 15th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
No burt
Vote:The red necks have been dishing to gays for centuries, always have, always will.
July 15th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Are you saying that homosexuality is part of the continuing evolution of the human race?
It is an anomally at best.
If the human race is evolving to be gay eventually we will die out as a species, correct?
Evolution is not kind to homosexuals.
Wow. This is beyond all levels of confusion I had expected. No-one, not me, not anyone else, is claiming that humans are evolving ‘towards’ being gay. Firstly, evolution does not ‘aim towards’ any set point. Secondly, well… …I’m just confused as to how you even got that out of what I said. Have you considered reading some science writing by credible authors?
Your final sentence sums up the situation well enough though. Homosexuals are a naturally occuring ‘anomally’ – there are probably reasons why homosexuality persists throughout the animal kingdom, but those may vary from species to species and they are largely yet to be established.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Shundra barunda
I’ve noticed throughout my life that a lot of people enjoy sex knowing (or trusting) that there is no potential for procreation. Perhaps you could explain how an intelligent species like humans could forget that if every now and then they don’t stick the boy thing in the girl thing then there will be no kids?
I’ll ignore the ‘red necks’ comment, I’m not going to get emotive about this, please don’t be unreasonable.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
matty
Vote:If a “fundamentalist” christian called a co worker a ‘murderer’ for having an abortion, they wouldn’t be a fundamentalist would they.
This hijacking of the english language is rediculous.
A fundamentalist christian by definition believes in the “fundamentals” of the faith i.e the teachings of Christ.
eg.Judge less you be judged
If some ignorant christian talks like this tell them to shut up and read the bible.
July 15th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Shunda Barunda:
Forget “natural” for a minute.
Does the inability of a gay couple to conceive and bear a child constitute evidence that homosexuality is wrong?
If yes, why?
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
RRM
If condoms are wrong then you don’t need to answer your question, which is a much bigger question. Steady as you go, baby steps may be the key to this one.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
“Who in their right mind would choose to be subjected to the prejudice and bigotry that gay people are treated with?”
I think the point of many on the other side is that the fact gays are gay shows they arent in their right minds to begin with.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Burt
Vote:there’s nothing to ignore, I am unsure as to what you mean, Red neck bigots are the ones who persecute gays, and christians for that matter.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
burt;
But to my childlike, inferior mind, condoms aren’t wrong, so I fail to take your point…?
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
““Who in their right mind would choose to be subjected to the prejudice and bigotry that gay people are treated with?”
Hmm, given the way the country is going these days there might be a few million white, middle aged heterosexual men who would gladly swap the prejudice, hatred and bigotry they face for what the gays put up with.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Yes big bruv. White, middle-aged straight men are just so persecuted, by golly! Why, I hear that they only make up the vastest majority of MPs and highly paid executives and they are favoured as school principals (even while there is a shortage of male teachers). Why aren’t there more is such positions?
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
I thought most of our mps were gay.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
RRM
In the eyes of the Catholic church condoms are wrong, as is homosexuality. Sex is for procreation. ‘Every sperm is sacred’ and all that.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Shunda Barunda: That’s awesome!
Vote:You grow in my estimation with each and every passing post.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Bert: even when it’s a Brother with an altar boy?
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
RRM
I thought your question “Does the inability of a gay couple to conceive and bear a child constitute evidence that homosexuality is wrong?” was a great question and I notice that it hasn’t been answered yet.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
RRM
Well that’s a different story, we kinda turn a blind eye to that but occasionally there have been sacrificial outings….
The way I see it, the imposition of celibacy onto any human is going to cause problems. Put a hungry man in a room full of ‘fresh meat’ and tell him he can’t eat – how sensible is that!
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Hmm, given the way the country is going these days there might be a few million white, middle aged heterosexual men who would gladly swap the prejudice, hatred and bigotry they face for what the gays put up with.
I’m a white heterosexual man and I’ve never noticed the slightest trace of hatred, prejudice or bigotry. If everyone you meet hates you then I suspect the problem is with you, not your demographic.
Straight white guys still basically run our entire country – even the Labour party cabinet has 20 MPs, 12 of whom are straight white men. We run most of the businesses, the churches, the unions, the schools and the universities.
It seems to me that when you are born into on of the most privileged demographics in human history the smart thing to do is shut-up and enjoy it. I’m always amazed that some people are such losers that they managed to screw even that up and have to find someone else to blame for their own inadequacy.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Burt, yes and I suppose I kind of overlooked the rather large difference in morality that comes with availing oneself of little boys too…
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
What about a christian then Danyl?
Vote:Perhaps we should go have a look at your blog and see an example of tolerance and understanding to all man kind.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
I thought most of our mps were gay.
Yep. That’s right. Politicians don’t come much gayer than Michael Cullen, Jaqui Dean, Dail Jones, Sue Kedgley, Annette King, John Key, Shane Jones, Winnie Laban, Murray McCully, Gordon Copeland, Ashraf Chaudry, Ron Mark, Wayne Mapp, Trevor Mallard, Helen Clark, Parekura Horomia, Keith Locke, Russel Norman, Pete Hodgson, Rodney Hide, Tau Henare, Hone Harawira, Sandra Goudie, Phil Goff, Te Ururoa Flavell, Jeanette Fitzsimons, Phillip Field, Bill English, Peter Dunne, let’s not forget Bob Clarkson… …the list just goes on.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
“I’m a white heterosexual man and I’ve never noticed the slightest trace of hatred, prejudice or bigotry.”
Yes Danyl, but from most of what you write on here, you must run around with your head up your arse, so how would you know??
“Straight white guys still basically run our entire country”
For fuck’s sake. Are you for real??? Ever heard of J Goebbels?? He was good at that kind of stuff too.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
What about a christian then Danyl?
Perhaps we should go have a look at your blog and see an example of tolerance and understanding to all man kind.
Let me know if you need help with any of the big words.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Matty
Vote:Maybe you could explain to this poor deranged “fundmentalist” christian exactly what gay people want from the NZ conservative public. Cause honestly buddy I couldn’t care less whether your gay, straight, bi, or whatever, I just want to get on with life, go to my church and believe what I like and not get called all the names under the sun. Do you really care what me and my friends think about human sexuality? No christians I know have plans to stop people being gay, we really don’t care. Why do so many gay people feel they have to get in christians faces all the time? Why do they care what our “antiquated” religion teaches in church, if you don’t like it don’t go.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Ahh Danyl, ever the patroniser.
Vote:When I grow up I wana be just like you.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
No christians I know have plans to stop people being gay, we really don’t care. Why do so many gay people feel they have to get in christians faces all the time? Why do they care what our “antiquated” religion teaches in church, if you don’t like it don’t go.
Um, I believe I mentioned earlier that homosexuals lack a variety of quite basic rights – marriage being one, adoption being another. I don’t see too many homosexuals “getting up in people’s faces”, at any rate the majority of gay people that I know do not. Does this count and “getting in your face”? I would think I’m not so much “getting up in someone’s face” as I am trying to persuade them that homosexuals are not treated equally to heterosexuals and there does not seem to be a reason why this should be so. What people do in their own churches is considerably different from what people do in their bedrooms. Children, hardly ‘consenting adults’, can go through a lot of suffering by being taught that perfectly innocuous aspects of living are ‘wrong’ for a start – gay and transgendered children in particular – but also the basics like masturbation and sex itself. Abstinence-only sex education has proved disasterous in the US, at best, and that is purely religiously motivated. Doctrines like this are verging on child abuse (although I hestitate to call it that, I’m not sure why) and it is quite right that people speak out against them.
I can’t speak for ‘gay people’. This gay person wants a secular, progressive, community-based nation with a high standard of living and low level of discrimination. A two-tiered system of marriage, and needless flight from gay adoption rights (not that adoption is all that common these days), obviously do not fit into that scheme.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Matty
Vote:If I consider marriage an important parnership between men and women, and something that my wife and I believe strongly in , do you think its ok if we have an opinion on gay couples altering the definition of our union?
Is it ok for there to be something just for male/female relationships to celebrate our sexuality?
I don’t have a problem with civil unions but I do have a problem with gay rights activists impinging on my right to express my sexuality , I believe the word “marriage” should denote male/female comitment as it always has.
And Matty why would I think you are getting in my face , we are having a discussion aren’t we?
Your concern for our children sounds legitimate enough, but really honestly most christians are nothing like you describe, most of the people in my church don’t even come from a christian family upbringing.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
So, basically you have no problem with gays, as long as they don’t start thinking they deserve to get married like “proper” people…???
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
If you interpreted it like that then there is not much point in discussing this further.
Vote:Question
Is it ok for a man and a women to have an exclusive relationship status that reflects their heterosexual sexuality or not ?.
It is a simple human rights issue
And RRM Why did you put “proper” in quotation, I never said that, don’t smear me as a bigot my friend , stick to the issue at hand.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Hehehe… Nothing like the thought of a bit of hot man-on-man love to get the Kiwibloggers running off at the keyboard…
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
“Question – Is it ok for a man and a women to have an exclusive relationship status that reflects their heterosexual sexuality or not ?.”
No. What need is there for any form of status that excludes other sexualities, unless you want to discriminate?
“It is a simple human rights issue”
Correct. Denying a gay couple a legal distinction that you would grant to a straight couple most definitely IS a human rights issue.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Hey, capills enema
Vote:have you made a donation to an abused childrens fund?
or do you just like using victims of peodophiles as a sick joke?
July 15th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
RRM: “What need is there for any form of status that excludes other sexualities, unless you want to discriminate?”
In my view, I don’t think Shunda (although I can’t speak for him): is discriminating; he is merely differentiating.
Personally I support his right to do so.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
“but I do have a problem with gay rights activists impinging on my right to express my sexuality , I believe the word “marriage” should denote male/female comitment as it always has.”
Shunda shunda shunda…
If you want to express your sexuality, you are welcome at any time to go and f*ck your wife. I won’t “impinge” on you and nor will “gay rights activists.”
You are the one who is impinging on the gays by saying marriage is something special that is not for them.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
RRM your logic is pathetic
Vote:You just said I cannot express my sexuality in a relationship unless I afford the offer to people with a fundamentally DIFFERENT relationship. So much for diversity, your statement fits the very definition of biggotry
Gay couples DO have the same legal distinction and relationship recognition from the govt.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
You just said I cannot express my sexuality in a relationship unless I afford the offer to people with a fundamentally DIFFERENT relationship.
Okay Shunda, elaborate on how the relationship is fundamentally different from a secular and civic perspective (i.e. from the perspective that matters if NZ is not a theocracy)?
Incidentally, thank you for being respectful.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
RRM: “You are the one who is impinging on the gays by saying marriage is something special that is not for them.”
Whatever gives you that idea?
What’s wrong with getting all the legal status, rights and opportunities of marriage, it’s just not called the same thing. You pick a name.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
RRm
Vote:bit hot under the collar buddie?
Hit a raw nerve did I?
Its always only a matter of time before the left wing bigots get personal.
There is nothing wrong with celebrating the diversity of human relationships, unless of coarse you are heterosexual in which case no individual rights will be afforded.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
A fundamentally different relationship? Really?? Two people who like each other, live together, and play ‘hide the sausage’ some nights?
But I can see the notion that Gays are “fundamentally DIFFERENT” than other people is a core belief of yours…
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Shunda barunda: no, it isn’t OK for you to attempt to define the term marriage. Whether someone else gets married or not should not impact your union in any way at all. If you are as religious as you sound to be, surely your marriage is sanctified in your church, by your god. If your church reflects your belief system, then surely your church will never sanctify gay marriage. So isn’t your marriage already special? Do Jewish marriages, Hindu marriages, civil marriages undermine your marriage? They are all also different from your marriage.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
RRM, personally I haven’t experienced both sides, but I’d almost guarantee that a relationship between a man and a woman has fundamentally different dynamics to a man-man or woman-woman.
So what’s wrong with acknowledging that by having separate institutions?
It’s a very hot Gay issue, isn’t it, this gay marriage? Globally. Must be a coincidence.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Shunda, you’ve been doing a great job of holding the conservative side of the debate with little backup. It is great reading your posts.
As a Christian, I too don’t want to stop homosexuals doing what they do, that’s their choice. I do want to retain the right to say that it is wrong of course.
And I also want to keep the meaning of a word. The word “marriage” has always meant a union between a man and a woman, in any culture I know of. To say it is wrong to not include other unions in the definition is like saying it is discriminatory for the word “dog” to just mean “dog”, it should be able to mean “cat” as well. Or to say the word “homosexual” should also include heterosexuals. I want to be able to say “I am married” and have people know exactly what I mean, not have to say “I am married to a woman in a Christian heterosexual marriage” or something else.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Reid:
What’s wrong with that is that as soon as you create an institution that is open to some people, and not open to others, and the only difference between the invited and the not is their (sexual orientation / religious creed / skin colour) then isn’t that committing discrimination?
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
RRM, personally I haven’t experienced both sides, but I’d almost guarantee that a relationship between a man and a woman has fundamentally different dynamics to a man-man or woman-woman.
Vote:The range of differences within gender is about as big as the range of differences between the genders, so what you’re saying has next to no meaning. The dynamics of every relationship differ, sometimes fundamentally, sometimes in minor ways, and whether the relationship is gay or straight has relatively little bearing on the matter.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
PaulL:
“Do Jewish marriages, Hindu marriages, civil marriages undermine your marriage? They are all also different from your marriage.”
No, they are pretty much the same – they are all between a man and a woman. Even in cases where the culture allows a man to have multiple wives, marriage is still between a man and a woman (the man can just be simultaneously married to a few). Even in the past when men had concubines (basically slave wives) the man is still described as the husband and the woman occasionally as his wife. Throughout history even in those marriage situations we may disagree with, it is still a man and a woman.
That is what the word marriage means.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
And I also want to keep the meaning of a word. The word “marriage” has always meant a union between a man and a woman, in any culture I know of. To say it is wrong to not include other unions in the definition is like saying it is discriminatory for the word “dog” to just mean “dog”, it should be able to mean “cat” as well. Or to say the word “homosexual” should also include heterosexuals. I want to be able to say “I am married” and have people know exactly what I mean, not have to say “I am married to a woman in a Christian heterosexual marriage” or something else.
I feel much the same, Mr. Dennis. I want to be able to simply say, “I am married”, legally, and have people know exactly what I mean. I don’t want to have to say “I am married to a man in an atheistic homosexual marriage”.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Matty
Vote:What I am trying to say is gay couples could have all the same legal advantages of what I have in my marriage, while allowing the current word “marriage” to be a term used to define the relationship of a man and a woman.
I think having a term that men and women can use to define a commitment to live together as life partners in a heterosexual relationship is important.
gay couples could have a different term to define their civil union.
I don’t see why it is negative discrimination to celebrate two different types of relationship.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Ooops, my suggestion seems to have touched a nerve with old ‘Shunda’… (shunter, perhaps?)…
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
RRM: “blah blah blah …isn’t that committing discrimination?”
No, it’s committing differentiation. Been to a Gospel Church lately? Neither have I. But let’s assume it’s rather different than St Patrick’s in NYC. Rather different don’t you think and both sides wouldn’t have it any other way.
Why not just accept that gay does not equal straight, and live with and accommodate the differences rather than try to pretend someone’s victimising you when actually, no-one is in sight?
Why not accept the fact that you’re a demographic like all others that are singled out for special treatment by various players. For example, the medical insurance companies discriminate against people with re-existing and chronic conditions and they’re entitled to and no-one says anything.
You treat this as if it’s a national calamity against human-rights and that’s complete and provable freakin bollocks.
I’m sure you’ll decry my “singled out” phrase, but if you do, you misunderstand. You are different. Hello. Men and Women are different too. Live with it. We all do.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Shunda, I don’t see why you care. You are trying to deny something from other people, they are trying to deny nothing from you, only to do something themselves. I don’t see how you can possibly be in the right.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
What I am trying to say is gay couples could have all the same legal advantages of what I have in my marriage, while allowing the current word “marriage” to be a term used to define the relationship of a man and a woman.
Vote:But why? Why does your relationship merit special treatment – like a special title? Why is it important that gay marriages and straight marriages are kept distinct? Are gay marriages less important to society than straight ones? And why is that the case? I’m just searching for a concrete reason for your opinion beyond a personal sense of superiority and deeply held whim (and I acknowledge that it is deeply held).
July 15th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Reid: “Why not just accept that gay does not equal straight, and live with and accommodate the differences rather than try to pretend someone’s victimising you when actually, no-one is in sight?”
Vote:I do acknowledge they are different. Gay people marry their own gender, straight people marry the opposite. In what sense are they not ‘equal’ though?
July 15th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Reid – well you are of course welcome to “blah blah blah” over the bits that aren’t important – to you!
I for one have been enjoying a kiwiblog debate that remained civilised for more than a full rally. Thanks chaps but signing off now as the missus does not approve of all this midnight bloggery.
Vote:(As I’ve said before, I’m no practitioner of the brown arts or even a fan of them, but I defend what people like to call “gay rights” absolutely because all of the gay guys and gals I know are pretty amazing PEOPLE… )
July 15th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
My marriage means something to me.
Vote:Marrige to me represents the longest standing institution between people, differentiated by sex that exists.
To me it represents how two very different (both pysically, and mentally) people can commit to each other, to work together, and demonstrate to humanity that diversity can be a good thing. Through working out our lives together my wife and I have become totally different people, we have children that are a combination of both of us and we spend time with other similar families. This is only possible with the union of a man and a women, heterosexual marriage IS fundamentally different to gay civil unions.
I have no problem with civil unions of gay couples, I just think there are significant differences to warrant a separate title, boys and girls are different.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Matty
Vote:I do not think I am supperior to you at all, and I think you should have rights to have your relationship formally recognised if you choose to. Civil unions are outside the scope of my beliefs, its not my place to judge you or any one else.
I just think of marriage in more than just legal terms, it just means more than a legal document to me, and most other married people feel the same.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Well, Shunda, you haven’t described a relationship much different from many gay ones, so it comes back to this being an unjustified, but strongly held, whim of yours. Not something to be enshrined in law.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Kiwiblog – the home of white, middle aged, heterosexual men.
Homosexuality is, in my opinion, influenced very much by biological and environmental factors. Ask any homosexual if they just “had a choice”, you will most certainly get a consistent response – No
If people on here cannot accept equality then they should put up or shut up.
Take it from someone who knows.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Matty: “In what sense are they not ‘equal’ though?”
In every sense they are equal, but they are not the same.
Look, marriage has an institutional value. That value in society is cross-cultural, trans-generational. It is inside us as humans.
Something that’s lasted since time began, is now under threat of change from a movement that began 50 years ago and which currently IMO, has a spurious argument.
The nature of the change to which it is under threat carries a critically high risk of degrading the institutional values that have served humankind extremely well. The reason is that, without being judgemental, gays simply don’t carry the same values as those carried by idealised married couples which many newlyweds attempt to emulate (and which is the raison d’etre for the institution of course). While risking feigned hurt about stereotyping, I innocently ask: what are the stereotypes for young gays vs. young married-couples on: drugs, promiscuity, monogamy, responsibility; to name but a few. Remember, I’m not talking about your own view, I’m asking, what’s the stereotype?
See that shows you the value of the institution.
It’s a simple fact. You may not like it, but don’t try to pretend that factor doesn’t exist. It’s almost as if you want to destroy it.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
james
Vote:Diversity and eqaulity are two different things there is nothing wrong with distinctions in society.
take it from someone who knows.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Matty
Vote:I descibed things that no gay couple would be able to participate in, my wife and I have little people we have created that have half of each of us, that in it self is reason for distinction of relationships.
And I know some couples don’t have kids, but the majority do.
And anyone that says men and women don’t think different is decieved, it is a totally different dynamic, it opens each of you up to a whole new way of interpreting life.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Shunda – For you to accept diversity (in most cases) you must accept equality.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
James: “For you to accept diversity (in most cases) you must accept equality.”
Newsflash James: no-one is arguing against equality. Equality however does not equal uniformity. The Gay Marriage Movement is NOT arguing for equality, it’s arguing for uniformity. (It’s disguising itself as equality but only real morons get taken in by that.)
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
If homosexuality is innate and immutable; then surely, the desire to beget children isn’t part of the equation – procreation being the realm of such heterosexual acts.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
james
Vote:Equality does not mean surrendering all I have and hold dear to the scrutiny of others
It means each individual life has equal value, and others should respect the values of others without dismissing them as “whims”
Do I as a pakeha have the right to demand maori change their protocol to suit me cause its my human right?
Of coarse not, they have a long running cultural heritage and I need to respect that. My marriage is a much longer cultural heritage, but because I am a christian somehow I have less right to object, that my friend is intollerance .
July 15th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
And with a nice sense of timing there is this article – courtesy of A&L Daily
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=bisexual-species&print=true
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Well Grant
Vote:Some people believe marriage is the best place to raise children.
Perhaps if more believed that our kids would have a better chance than currently.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
I’ll defer to your superior knowledge of spurious arguments — but if you want to make the argument from history, how about your daughter getting married at 12? Polygamy? How about inter-racial or inter-faith marriages — you don’t have to go far at all to find cases when they weren’t only illegal, but considered serious crimes.
Young married couples? Let’s see — they’ve probably lived together and fucked like rabbits. And there’s a fifty-fifty chance they’re going to get divorced (more than once), fuck around, and drunken failure Father Knows Best will at some point smack his Nagging Bitch up because the pressure of servicing a unrealistic lifestyle fuelled by debt is too much. And once the promiscuous, cheating man-slut has pissed off, good luck getting a penny of child support out of the deadbeat jerk-off.
Hey, you wanted the stereotype…
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
I descibed things that no gay couple would be able to participate in, my wife and I have little people we have created that have half of each of us, that in it self is reason for distinction of relationships.
So infertile straight couples should not be allowed marriage either? What about straight couple who, for whatever reason, choose not to procreate? What about gay couples who DO have children (albeit not ‘half of each of them’). Should step-parents only marry if they intend to have children that are genetically theirs alongside their current ones?
This still sounds like a whim, and an inconsistent one at that.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Well Craig
Vote:It must be really hard to dig up dirt on one of the most common relationships in the world.
My argument has been blown out of the water.
I am changing my marriage to a civil union.
July 16th, 2008 at 12:01 am
And anyone that says men and women don’t think different is decieved, it is a totally different dynamic, it opens each of you up to a whole new way of interpreting life.
I didn’t say men and women do not think differently. I simply pointed out that men and men think differently too, as do women and women – often with more disparity between them than a man and woman might have.
It means each individual life has equal value, and others should respect the values of others without dismissing them as “whims”
Vote:Really Shunda, I will gladly stop calling them whims when you conclusively demonstrate that they are not merely so. I respect your opinion, but I don’t think your opinion needs to be the law of our country (perhaps the law of a church). That is all.
July 16th, 2008 at 12:03 am
Matty I am getting tired of the negativity quite frankly.
Vote:I have been civil to you only for you to consistantly refer to my beliefs as a “whim”
Being dismisive of someones culture like that is never constructive and only ensures the missunderstanding will continue.
I have no idea why you don’t see my perspective on this, I am not trying to deny anyones rights, just uphold my own.
July 16th, 2008 at 12:09 am
But you have not yet established why you should hold this right – this heterosexual-only marriage – to the detriment of homosexual marriages (which exist only as “Civil Unions”). You have given me your beliefs, and I truly respect that they are your beliefs – and that you hold them dear to your heart, so-to-speak. However, you have not made a case that your beliefs should be a law that governs those who do not share them yet.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 12:16 am
Matty
Vote:There seem to be a large number of liberal people in NZ including gay, that speak of christians as if we are only partial citizens.
I am not suggesting you are doing this, but it seems many think if you hold certain beliefs your value as person is some how diminished and your right to participate is not respected.
I don’t know what people think we are, but honestly people just need to relax. We are not flat out indoctrinating our kids against gays or anyone else.
July 16th, 2008 at 12:21 am
“How about inter-racial or inter-faith marriages — you don’t have to go far at all to find cases when they weren’t only illegal, but considered serious crimes. ”
Not at all analogous to homosexual marriage. There are no differences between people of different races or different faiths, but there are vast differences between the sexes. Whilst it was clearly immoral to deny marriages based on race and faith, it is not immoral to insist that marriage is between a man and a woman. Your thesis is completely false.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 12:26 am
I suppose Matty, I don’t see marriage so much as a right, but as a tradition which is quite different.
Vote:I understand you are seeking equality as a human being primarily, but I don’t see this as an equality issue.
Is the gay community united in this do most gay couples want marriage?
I guess if the govt dosen’t view marriage as a tradition among heterosexuals then I will just have to accept it but I am not being a bigot, this is not an intollerance issue.
July 16th, 2008 at 1:15 am
Well, Baiter, if Reid wants to run the argument from history then I’ll take him at face value — but he better be prepared for kinds of stuff he mightn’t want to defend too loudly. Or perhaps he’s fine with polygamy and child brides as long as it’s only between one man and as many little girls as you stand. You can’t have it both ways, folks.
Really? You should pop over to Sydney, and take it up with Pope Benedict XVI because as far as I know there’s still a rather strict prohibition on Catholic priests conducting Catholic marriage rites on church property where one party isn’t actually Catholic. Civil law, on the other hand, doesn’t really have any interest in the matter and neither should it.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 2:11 am
Shunda, matey… if you’re against gay marriage – as I am – then take my advice… and this has always worked for me: Don’t get married to another fella.
Problem solved, me old china.
“Is the gay community united in this do most gay couples want marriage?”
My my, that’s a strong contender for the silliest comment on this thread, and seeing that Redbaiter’s commented more than once, that’s quite an achievement.
Of what possible relevance is that to whether ‘Adam & Steve’ are to be allowed full and unequivocal matrimonial recognition of their relationship?
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 6:59 am
There seem to be a large number of liberal people in NZ including gay, that speak of christians as if we are only partial citizens.
You’ve made this claim a few times – I wonder if you can produce any evidence to support it. Can you provide evidence of any public figure – straight or gay – making attacks on the citizenship rights of Christians?
I have no problem with civil unions of gay couples, I just think there are significant differences to warrant a separate title, boys and girls are different.
As has been pointed out a similar argument was made against mixed-race marriages. Blacks and whites were ‘different’ so they weren’t permitted to marry. The same weak lines about ‘tradition’ were used to defend the bigotry.
I am also married, and I can’t conceive of any way in which allowing gay people to marry will affect my marriage – on the contrary, I feel that my having access to a right that is deprived to others simply on the basis of ignorance and prejudice diminishes the institution of marriage. It will be stronger and more significant when everyone can do it.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Well Danyl
Vote:have you stated that you believe christianity is a nurological disease before?
Are you sure you are not a closet homosexual? about the only thing that gets your notice on this blog is gay “rights” or evolution, oh and you do seem to love attacking the christians , it would kind of make sense.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:48 am
i thought we were talking about ginges..
..and ‘what to do about them.’..?
how about some ‘focus’ here..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Tacking on to this extended conversation/thread:
From what I can see the issues/discussion around Homosexuality boils down to two propositions;
Sexuality is considered a practice, entered into by participants in a willing engagement,
while on the other hand sexuality is intrinsically ‘entwined’ in one’s humanity and unseparable from who an individual is.
If you consider sexuality entwined with your humanity, then the arguments derived from genetics and the animal kingdom (i.e. an evolutionary sexuality) appeal. We are all products of things outside of our control. Sexuality and everything else that makes us human, is the subject of genetic/evoltionary determinism, and outside of an individual or society’s power to influence. Following this line of reasoning, any denial of sexual expression, is a denial of one’s humanity. Thus laws that impinge upon an expression of sexuality are considered barriers to people fully becoming/being human. So rules that focus on homosexual marriage contracts and adoption of children become the ‘battleground’ at which proponents work at.
Conversely, the other proposition asserts that humans choose their sexuality, and practice accordingly. Enviroment and culture may be persuasive in this choice, but ultimately the individual makes the decision as to their behaviour. Because sexuality is subject to individual will/decision making, it is open to influence. Societies are gatherings of individuals, so a society’s stance on sexuality (and consequently the laws that govern that society), is a reflection of the individuals within it and the decision that they have each made. The challenge in this instance then becomes: what does society deem to be acceptable sexuality choice and upon what basis is it made.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 10:25 am
If sexuality is just another part of humanity, why do gay activists make everything about sex?
Vote:Why when they acheive equal relationship rights do they then seek to impinge in the rights of other peoples traditions and culture?
Why do homosexuals have gay bars, gay politician movements, gay student groups and all other mannor of sexuality defined groups?
Why can’t I have a sexuality defined group called “marriage” for heterosexuals only.
The answer is simple, it is gay revenge against the “bigots” it is the gay community giving the big “finger” to conservative NZ.
No body has made any challenge to my logic on this issue other than spout off liberal rhetoric, why? cause they are hypocrites.
July 16th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Craig:
“Or perhaps he’s fine with polygamy and child brides as long as it’s only between one man and as many little girls as you stand. You can’t have it both ways, folks.”
As has been pointed out repeatedly, all these variations on marriage such as polygamy are STILL between a male and a female. No-one ever said we were happy with them, nor tried to defend them. We are simply defending the meaning of a word.
The word “marriage” means a union between a man and a woman. This is the case whether or not the man can be simultaneously married to a few women, or whether the woman is 12 years old. Whether or not we think these situations are appropriate, this is still marriage.
Marriage has never meant a union between a man and a man. Stop trying to change our language just to be PC.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
I had to laugh at the repetitive suggestion that homosexuals can’t reproduce. Really? As the daughter of a gay man, sister of a gay woman, and an egg donor to boot, I can assure you it can be done!
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Shunda: If sexuality is just another part of humanity, why do gay activists make everything about sex?
Where, in any of my posts above, have I “made everything about sex”. It seems to me that you’re the one trying to make this a topic about sex – quite suddenly and now. I’d consider myself a gay “activist” (whatever that even means) in that I will act to defend my fundamental rights.
Shunda: Why when they acheive equal relationship rights do they then seek to impinge in the rights of other peoples traditions and culture?
How does gay marriage ‘impinge upon your rights’? Not allowing gay marriage impinges upon the rights of gay families, as far as I can see.
Shunda: Why do homosexuals have gay bars, gay politician movements, gay student groups and all other mannor of sexuality defined groups?
“Homosexuals” do not “have” gay bars and gay political movements enshrined in law. I’m gay, and I don’t participate in any gay “movements” or “sexuality defined groups”. I’ve been to gay bars before, but I feel out-of-place at them, and so do most gay men I know. “Gay bars” are not unions recognised by the state, nor should they be. Why would they be?
Finally, although I think you’ve taken for the rude and probably are not worth talking to anymore, could you respond to Danyl’s question without the ad hom: “<b.You’ve made this claim a few times – I wonder if you can produce any evidence to support it. Can you provide evidence of any public figure – straight or gay – making attacks on the citizenship rights of Christians?”
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Mr.Dennis: The word “marriage” means a union between a man and a woman.
Vote:Not everywhere in the world, not in Canada. Moreover, why does ‘marriage’ necessarily mean ‘between a man and a woman’, what good reason is there why a gay marriage is not a marriage.
July 16th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
It only doesn’t just mean it in Canada anymore because of the gay lobby getting it changed recently. Very circular reasoning.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Yes Mr Dennis, the definition was extended in Canada, quite recently. You now have to provide a compelling reason why it should not be extended here as well. Can you do that?
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
All the reasons given by myself and others already that the definition should not be extended here are just as valid even with it having been changed in Canada. They are in fact reasons why it shouldn’t have been changed in Canada in the first place.
The only relevance Canada has is that it means if you want to have a homosexual marriage you can go over there and get one – meaning there is even less reason for us to change the law here.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Matty – “Marriage” doesn’t mean a gay couple because – um – because – because it just doesn’t, okay?
Stop being so GAY
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
All the reasons given by myself and others already that the definition should not be extended here are just as valid even with it having been changed in Canada. They are in fact reasons why it shouldn’t have been changed in Canada in the first place.
Vote:Which reasons. You haven’t given any reasons. You’ve said it’s traditional, which is not a reason. You’re being incredibly evasive here. Could you bullet point the reasons for me, perhaps I’m just a little too stupid (liberalism ate my brain) to have picked up on them.
July 16th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
And I don’t have to provide a compelling reason why something shouldn’t be changed, nor do you have to provide a compelling reason why it should. Of course, if you don’t provide a compelling reason why it should we aren’t going to change it. Most of us are quite happy with the status quo. The burden of proof is in your camp, not in mine, don’t try to shift it.
Please provide your bulletpointed list why we should change the status quo. I will try to answer it tomorrow when I have time.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Matty
Vote:Many gay activists, (I am not saying you), DO make it all about the sexual component of life. It just gets so tiring of getting some one elses over exagerated cause shoved in your face all the time.
It is totally true that many in the gay rights movement divide the community over sexuality, I have even been told this by lesbian people I know!!
The battle for gay rights has largely been won, prehaps instead of just grabbing marriage as well, the gay community could take off the bigot filter for a second and ask married people how they feel about it. This is part of my culture and heritage and I deserve a say. This has nothing to do with human rights, it is about some people wanting to modify a tradition, the people who have been upholding that tradition have a right to object.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
philu said:
>> philu (2288) Add karma Subtract karma –1 Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 8:48 am
i thought we were talking about ginges..
..and ‘what to do about them.’..?
how about some ‘focus’ here..!
phil(whoar.co.nz) <<
Bloody oath, enough of this gay banter. Lets talk about why gingas should NEVER wear red and why green, while technically matching just raises the ginga-ness tones to new levels.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
what about light blue..?
ginges should never ever wear light blue..
and what about their eyelashes…?
ech..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Shunda: Right. So now the argument is that because some gay people are immature idiots, that all gay people shouldn’t have rights. There are plenty of immature heterosexual idiots. It is unreasonable to brand all gay people with the folks that you have met who are gay.
Nobody is in any way saying that:
a) You have to be party to a gay marriage (I’m guessing you knew that, but just to be sure…)
b) Your church has to perform gay marriages
The only argument I see that you have put is that you believe the traditional definition of the word marriage only includes unions between men and women. And, presumably, if I can find an example of any civilisation that thought differently (say, the Romans) that you would agree that this isn’t a solid argument?
I also note that even if I can’t find an example, I don’t believe that tradition is an argument for doing things – there are many things that were done traditionally that I don’t believe you should be able to force people to do. Traditionally women were not permitted to speak on the Marae. This shouldn’t be a law, and some Marae nowadays do let women speak. Others don’t, and that is their choice on their private property.
The benefit of allowing gay marriage is that it removes a discriminatory law. Currently the only reason that gay people cannot marry is because they are gay. That is, pure and simple, discrimination. The state should have no role in making laws like that. I have no problem if private institutions choose not to offer gay marriages, to force them to do so would impinge on their rights.
I always find it quite amazing how many who believe in economic freedom simply cannot conceive of social freedoms. (Equally, I also find it amazing how many who believe in social freedoms cannot conceive of economic freedoms, but that is for another day). What it often says to me is that their belief system is based around what impacts them, not based on what is objectively the right thing to do.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Gay Schmay.
GINGA GINGA GINGA.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Paul
Vote:Spare me the rhetoric, you are living proof of how pathetic bleeding heart liberals have become.
If you think because I believe in a tradition I have to keep it all to myself you are even dumber than you sound.
I also happen to be part of a democracy where my opinions are of equal value to any one elses, regardless of my religion.
You said it yourself, gay’s only want marriage cause I have got it, they already have equal relationship status for crying out loud!
When did I ever say gay people couldn’t have rights?, typical liberal distortion of the truth to win an argument. When you are ready to step down off your high horse maybe some progress will be made, until then, enjoy your feelings of superiority and enlightened bliss.
July 16th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Mr Dennis: Please provide your bulletpointed list why we should change the status quo. I will try to answer it tomorrow when I have time.
- Homosexual relationships do not differ in any salient way to heterosexual ones and, therefore, deserve equal treatment.
- A two-tier system of marriage in which gays can only access one tier implies that homosexual relationships are not equal to heterosexual ones, and therefore is discriminatory.
- There are studies demonstrating that marriage tends to provide a stabler framework for families. Gay families should not be deprived of this widely-recognised convention and its benefits without a very compelling reason.
Now, your burden is to provide a reason – a concrete reason, mind you – why gay marriages are NOT equal to heterosexual ones. Gay relationships are definitely different to straight relationships, just as intercultural marriages are different to monocultural ones. You need to remember that relationships can differ and still be equal. You could also provide a concrete reason why gay marriages are detrimental to society, or to heterosexual marriages.
Shuna: This has nothing to do with human rights, it is about some people wanting to modify a tradition, the people who have been upholding that tradition have a right to object
But, Shuna, I’ve outlined reasons why the tradition needs to be extended, and you have not refuted them. “Gays should not marry because marriage is MINE” is a tantrum, not a compelling argument.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Besides the genetic breeding part you mean?
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
PaulL: “I always find it quite amazing how many who believe in economic freedom simply cannot conceive of social freedoms.”
I always find it quite amazing that people who advocate for gay marriage cannot stop trying to alter the existing traditional institution and apparently refuse to consider even the possibility of creating a new one just for themselves. That would, you would have thought, make everybody happy. But apparently not. Now: precisely, why is that?
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Its getting boring here. I’m thread hopping out.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
expat: that wasn’t an argument. If it were, we would deny marriage to any couple incapable of breeding.
Shunda, your arguments are getting more shrill, and it seems to be based around some misplaced sense that you aren’t being listened to enough. I suspect you don’t get listened to because your arguments have little substance, not because of the group you happen to be a member of.
You are quite correct that you get 1 vote the same as the rest of us. But what will win those votes when the time comes, is a compelling argument. You don’t have one of those, so whilst you may wish to preserve your tradition, I’m pretty sure that a substantial number of NZers don’t see “that’s the way it’s always been” as a reason.
Your characterisation of my arguments is a straw man, and your description of me as a “bleeding heart liberal” is a long way from the truth. Those who know me would laugh themselves silly at that description.
My problem is that you seem to believe that you have a right for someone else not to do something. I don’t believe that is a right, you can have a right for others to not impinge on you, but you should not have a right to stop someone else doing something just because you don’t like it. Otherwise I would have a right to stop people driving SUVs, a right to stop middle aged men wearing toupees (they look stupid), a right to stop people from playing rugby league (I think the All Blacks would be stronger if they could draw on all rugby playing talent in the country).
Other than that it would make you feel that your marriage had been cheapened, and that you don’t like the English language to evolve, I have heard absolutely nothing that indicates why your preferences should have the power to stop someone else doing something that doesn’t impact you.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Reid, and I don’t understand why you care. Really, what difference does it make to you? If it makes them happy, why shouldn’t they be allowed it?
I just do not understand in any way shape or form how you think the nature of someone else’s marriage impacts on your own marriage, your own religion, or your own beliefs. Probably if I could understand that and it made sense, I could agree with you.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Questions
1. are there any legal distinctions between civil unions and marriage at the moment?
2. If there is no legal difference between civil union and marriage under NZ law is it reasonable to think that gay/straight couples now have equality under NZ law? .
Having reached this equality, for gay couples to now seek the term “marriage” is infact in addition to legal equality and is a desire to be part of a TRADITION, it is not a gay rights issue, are gay people pathalogically insecure?,the rights have been established.
Vote:Therefore as this is not a gay rights issue it is entirely reasonable to debate the merits or otherwise of changing the tradition,
and inspite of your best efforts, no rational human being is going to see that a relationship between a man and a woman is the same as a relationship between a man and a man.
When this issue comes into the public spot light there will be no democratic process involved so ultimately you will likely win your “rights” any way, it dosen’t make it right though .
July 16th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Paul
It is like forcing the allblacks to accept 50% women on the team because it is their “right”
The Allblacks are a gender specific part of a wider sporting code that anyone has a right to participate in.
Marriage is the allblacks.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Sorry Shunda, don’t think that is a valid analogy. If we allowed gay marriage, nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. If we prohibit gay marriage, we are forcing someone to do (or not do) something.
I don’t believe that civil unions are currently equal in the eyes of the law to marriage. If we made them exactly equal in every respect (say, some law change that basically said “everywhere the law says marriage, it should also be read to include civil unions”) then we’d be a lot closer.
I’d still fail to understand why you care, but I would agree that it is a much smaller issue, and at that point I wouldn’t really be interested in wasting my time talking about it – it would be just a question of language.
I don’t really understand though why you think your definition of the word marriage is the one everyone else in the country should use. Me, I don’t care what definition people want to use so long as they aren’t forcing me to use their definition, which seems to me to be a bit more tolerant.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
PaulL: “I just do not understand…”
Paul, an institution acts as a societal anchor. A societal anchor is a reference point, something people can look to for security. A societal anchor can only be formed voluntarily, over generations. It cannot be forced on people, it has no physical presence and no monetary value.
I think marriage is probably the primary societal anchor in humankind. It transcends democracy by far, which is the closest relative and a poor one at that, relatively.
Gay marriage advocates are forcing their views upon people who don’t want them, and calling it discrimination. It’s nothing of the kind. You can have everything physical we have: you can have the same legals, the same everything. You just can’t have that which symbolises the institutional values. Period.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
reid: I see it completely the other way round. You are forcing your views on them when you tell them what they can and can not call marriage. They are asking for the right for them to call it marriage and to be seen as such in the eyes of the law, they don’t really give a shit what you call it. It seems to me that you are the one discriminating, not them.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
I supose Paul I don’t really understand why gay people have a problem with defining sexuality specific relationships.
Vote:I am not someone who beleives in blending societey for the shear hell of it, some times when you mix a whole lot of stuff together, you just end up with an ugly mess. Diversity can be a good thing.
I think preserving diferent aspects of our culture is important, much like saving old buildings or old trees.
I guess I feel like someone arguing to save an old building, but realising that it is probably in vain. I am sincerely not trying to attack the rights of gay people but I can see how it may look like I am, that is not my intention.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Paul
Vote:we were minding our own business getting on with our lives , when the gay community came knocking and demanding we let them in.
No one can demand to come into my house it is my legal right, well my marriage is a legal document and I need to be party to any amendments.
Am I intollerant if I don’t let a stranger into my house?
July 16th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
PaulL: thanks for that thoughtful response.
I don’t think I’m discriminating but I am differentiating.
In my mind a gay couple differs from a straight couple and that difference should be acknowledged, not treated as if it wasn’t there. There are many examples of inescapable differentiation, adults and children, men and women, gays and straights
Some people seem to imagine they will progress by breaking down the barriers they see before them. That’s what’s behind for example, feminism and the gay movement. However the barriers in those two movements, these days, are either self-erected (i.e. don’t exist) or in pockets (like the deep south where they sit on the porch and play banjos). Everywhere else, I hope you acknowledge, they don’t exist.
I’ve already said, take all the physical stuff, the legals, etc; what more do you need or want?
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Doesn’t really impact me – I’m straight and in a long-term relationship (never chose to get married). It’s philisophical with me – I strongly believe that the power of the state should only be used where it needs to be. I don’t like being taxed for things I shouldn’t, I don’t like people telling me what to do when I wasn’t impinging on their rights.
Same way I don’t think that the government should have a place in raising children (to smack or not to smack – reasonable people can disagree), I don’t think the government should have a place in defining what are societal constructs like marriage. The more government intrudes, the more problems they create. I have no problem with groups of people deciding that they won’t practice gay marriage, or even that they won’t be gay at all. I just don’t see why those groups should be able to use the power of the state to impose that onto other people.
Sure, the government needs to regulate relationships between us. And there are functions where people cannot or will not do things for themselves – I’m not one of those who things you should be able to beat your children because you own them, or that there should be no welfare safety net at all. But so long as you aren’t harming others, I don’t think the government should have a place in telling you what to do. And I strongly feel that the bar here should be quite high – the government shouldn’t tell me what colour to paint my house, even if my neighbour doesn’t like pink very much. You could argue it sort of impacts him – he has to look at it, maybe it lowers his property price. But why can’t I paint it pink? It’s not enough for me. It has to involve me taking something from someone else, limiting someone else’s choices, somehow materially impacting their life.
I feel that what you are talking about fits in the “I don’t like the colour of my neighbour’s house” category. It doesn’t really impact you, you just don’t like it. You don’t like to think that other people have a relationship that they are allowed to call the same name as yours, but that is different than yours. I sort of see that it annoys you, but I’m really struggling how it impacts you more than when your neighbour paints their house pink.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Shunda:
I’m sure there’s a point under the home invasion melodramatics, but I’ll be knocked over with a feather before I can figure it out. Still, if we want to take that crackpot analogy out for a walk — you certainly don’t have to let me (or anyone else) come into your home so they can squat in the marital boudoir. How about repaying the courtesy, and getting your sticky nose back on your side of the fence?
Reid:
I’d like to know why the hell you’re so obsessed with clinging to something (I think) you regard as a meaningless form of words? “I’ve already said, take all the physical stuff, the legals, etc; what more do you need or want?” Actually being treated in civil law like an equal citizen would be nice. For all you tap-dancing, I get you don’t like poofs. Not really. And I don’t really give a damn what goes on in the privacy of your own head, as long as it says the hell out of my business.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Paul
Vote:Thankyou
You have given me a fantastic insight into your logic on this issue.
This is exactly the dialog we need, to work through these sort of issues.
I don’t necessarily agree with everything you said, but I do better understand where you are comming from and you have certainly provided food for thought.
cheers.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Craig: “For all you tap-dancing, I get you don’t like poofs.”
I actually love one Craig and I note that’s your term, not mine. I just don’t think “poofs” are the same as straight people, and since marriage is an institution founded and inhabited exclusively by straight people within the popular mythology which is the utter foundation of the institution, why not conserve that?
Why don’t “poofs” (your term) want their very own separate institution? Why oh why?
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Craig get a grip
Home invasion?
Dig a little deeper and you might learn something, if of coarse you can stop frothing at the mouth
Vote:Just relax,……. sheesh
July 17th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Dig a little deeper and you might learn something, if of coarse you can stop frothing at the mouth
Just relax,……. sheesh
Shunda:
Vote:I’m sorry, but I think the person who posted that hysterical froth at 11.04 is the one who needs to calm down and take the rabies shot. Seriously, was there actually a point to that over-wrought analogy?
July 17th, 2008 at 1:37 am
Well, I’m sorry Reid, but why don’t you get just how patronising and demeaning it is of you to say “sit at the back of the bus, and like it, because you make me uncomfortable”? I keep asking this, and nobody ever answers: But forget about the fatuous appeals to historical authority and tell me straight up, what clear and present ‘threat’ to your marriage, and the fabric of civilization, is posed by the idea that I would enter into a civil marriage with my partner, that a civil union doesn’t? The funny thing is that I don’t understand why moral conservatives were so up in arms about the Civil Unions Bill, it sent a blindingly clear message that committed same-sex couples are, at the heart of it, second-rate. Helen Clark and Peter Davis can dissolve their marriage and become CUP-cakes on a whim; but that doesn’t work the other way for gays and lesbians does it?
If folks like you were really concerned about the institution of marriage, one might think all this energy would be turned to repealing New Zealand’s no-fault divorce laws (more might think twice about marrying in haste, and divorcing even more quickly if they had to air out their dirty linen in an open court first, ay?) Or how about re-stigmatising children born out of wedlock (or ‘illegitimate bastards’ as they used to be called). Or does that come a little too close to home for some?
Vote:July 17th, 2008 at 10:51 am
grow up craig you are the one that sounds like the bigot.
Vote:July 17th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
PaulL:
“The benefit of allowing gay marriage is that it removes a discriminatory law. Currently the only reason that gay people cannot marry is because they are gay. That is, pure and simple, discrimination.”
You are looking at the issue entirely differently to myself, and using different definitions for your words, so I cannot argue with this statement without redefining things as I see them. Here is my logic:
Currently, the word “marriage” means a union between a man and a woman. I am sure you don’t disagree with this – you want to change the definition but at the moment that is what it means.
“Currently the only reason that gay people cannot marry is because they are gay” – well, there is not technical reason they can’t marry – they can. They just have to marry someone of the opposite sex, because the word “marriage” means a union between a man and a woman. But I know that is not what you are trying to say.
To make more sense in current English I could rephrase your statement “Currently the only reason that gay people cannot join in a state-recognised union is because they are gay”. However this is also false – gay people can join in a union – called a civil union. As I understand this is completely equal in the eyes of the law to marriage – if you can find any substantial differences please post them here.
Therefore, gay people can have their relationships formalised. Straight people can have their relationships formalised. One is called a civil union, one is called marriage. Both are equal – there is no two-tiered system.
Now the fact that straight people can also call their formalised relationship a civil union is a problem to me. This gives the impression that a civil union is a “lower” class than marriage or something like that. Legally it is not, and I cannot see any reason why a straight couple would wish to have a civil union rather than a marriage. I would prefer the law just called gay unions “civil unions” and straight unions “marriage”, this would be much simpler. Perhaps we should be arguing for the law to be changed in this way.
There is therefore no legal discrimination between gay and straight relationships – both can be formalised in virtually identical ways. We have just retained a distinction in our language to allow each to have a different name, for clarity. I don’t see what your problem was with this.
I thought we had the civil unions law to solve this debate. Didn’t the gay community actually want civil unions? Were we all fooled by the politicians?
Vote:July 17th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Matty Smith:
Thanks for that list.
“- Homosexual relationships do not differ in any salient way to heterosexual ones and, therefore, deserve equal treatment.”
I disagree, for physical and religious reasons primarily. I fully understand that you disagree with me on this however. Whether or not they “differ in any salient way” is a matter of opinion we will never agree on, however for the purposes of this post let us assume you are correct.
“- A two-tier system of marriage in which gays can only access one tier implies that homosexual relationships are not equal to heterosexual ones, and therefore is discriminatory.”
I understand the implication here, and I don’t like that in the civil unions law either as I explained in my reply to PaulL above (read that post for the detail). Legally we do not have a two-tier system, there is virtually no legal difference between a civil union and a marriage. But if civil unions were just for gays, and marriage for straights, then this would remove the appearance of the system being two-tiered. Then we would just have two different names for gay and straight unions, which sounds fair enough to me. Legally there would be no difference. If someone wishes to feel there is a difference between the two they would be free to do so, it is a free country, but no legal difference means no state-sanctioned discrimination.
“- There are studies demonstrating that marriage tends to provide a stabler framework for families.”
Vote:I fully agree, and it is interesting to hear a liberal using this argument. Many liberals would deny this research when they wished to argue that de-facto relationships were ok to raise children in and no different to marriage. I am glad to see that at least one liberal recognises the truth of this research. However all research done on this has been on straight couples – traditional straight marriage provides a stabler framework for families than de-facto straight relationships. This tells us nothing of whether gay marriage would have the same benefits for families, so is unfortunately unapplicable. If you can find research on civil unions or Canadian gay marriage as opposed to de-facto gay relationships then we could discuss this.
“Gay families should not be deprived of this widely-recognised convention and its benefits without a very compelling reason. ”
They are not being deprived. We have the civil union law. I thought this was supposed to end the debate in NZ but it obviously hasn’t.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Mr Dennis: Many liberals would deny this research when they wished to argue that de-facto relationships were ok to raise children in and no different to marriage. I am glad to see that at least one liberal recognises the truth of this research.
Firstly, while there are studies showing that marriage tends towards providing a stable framework for families, there is only so much one can draw for that. You have demonstrated that you lack the critical thinking skills to interpret research, so I would not trust that we are talking about the same studies at all. Above you confess that you oppose gay marriage for religious reasons when we are discussing marriage in law (not Biblical Lore), then you go on to say that separating out gay marriages from straight marriages even further will remove the perception that we have a two-tiered system of marriage. You are a very confused man, clearly, and I can only extend my sympathies at this point.
Vote:July 17th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
If you cannot answer the actual points I raised, but can only resort to accusing me of being very confused, that is ok.
Vote:July 18th, 2008 at 1:38 am
I’m afraid I don’t need to deal with your points, you’ve gotten to the point where you are contradicting yourself in your own posts, and rationalising it away with arbitrary semantic distinctions (a point that reid reached many posts ago). I am sorry that I don’t have more to say.
Vote: