Secret polygamy agenda denied

August 13th, 2008 at 6:53 am by David Farrar

Colin Espiner reports that Social Development Minister Rith Dyson is denying any secret agenda, despite a speech on the Beehive website saying the Government was moving to recognise triples.

Dyson says she never even delivered the speech, and doesn’t even know what triples refers to.

To assist Minister Ruth, we provuide the following from Wikipedia:

  1. polygamy: the practice of multiple marriage (a Greek word)
  2. polygyny: a man who has more than one wife (poor bastard :-)
  3. polyandry: a woman who has more than one husband
  4. polyamory: having more than one intimate relationship at a time with the consent of all involved
  5. polyfidelity: multiple romantic relationships with sexual contact restricted to specific partners in a group

Of course with same sex relationships, it gets even more complicated. What is the term for a trio of lesbians all joined in a civil union? No it isn’t pay per view :-)

Asked what the Government’s policy on polygamous relationships was, Dyson said: “The social security legislation is very clear about what a relationship is you’re either single or a couple. A couple is in the nature of marriage, which includes civil union and de facto.

“It’s been the same for years. It’s been tested in court. There’s no interest in changing it.”

An interesting response. The first part is stating what the law is, and the second part is merely saying there is no interest in changing it. That avoids the question of whether the Minister thinks polygamy should be legal? I mean did this speech just appear out of a vacuum?

Finally they ask for comment:

Collins said she was “intrigued” that the Government’s new social development model “now includes something called triples, and my mind just boggles”.

Asked for her view on Government recognition of polygamy, Collins said: “I don’t worry about what consenting adults get up to. I just don’t expect the taxpayer to pay for it.”

Absolutely.

Tags: , , , ,

52 Responses to “Secret polygamy agenda denied”

  1. jafapete (766 comments) says:

    What puts me off the idea of polygamy is the thought of all those in-laws!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Danyl Mclauchlan (1,065 comments) says:

    DPF – isn’t polygamy something that classic liberals like yourself would support? Don’t individuals have the right to enter into an arrangement like this if they so desire?

    [DPF: See the last line - people can do what they like, but I don't think the Government should be designing policies to nurture it]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. expat (4,048 comments) says:

    Ruth denies interest in legalising lesbian threesome marriages.

    What was on Ruths mind then?

    Surely it wasnt liberalising alternative relationships for recognition fiscally just before the election in chic urban lesbo electorates like wgn central?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. expat (4,048 comments) says:

    As Collins states – what ever, just dont expect me to pay for it, we are funding enough layabout alt lifestylers already.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. getstaffed (9,189 comments) says:

    Dyson says she never even delivered the speech, and doesn’t even know what triples refers to.

    What an idiot. The idea that anyone can say anything in a public forum and later deny it to the wider public is straight out of the dark ages communication handbook. Wake up Ruthie… this is 20008. I suppose she could have been drunk at the time

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. studmasternz (18 comments) says:

    Ruth has obviously been taking lessons from Winnie. Its her speech but she has no idea who wrote it, why they wrote it, what they meant or how it got on her web site. Must be a media beat up aye.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Glutaemus Maximus (2,207 comments) says:

    So if the Speech was possibly delivered, who could confirm that? Was there a secret taping perchance?

    If the speech wasn’t delivered as suggested, then has there been a mix up?

    The cache capture is eve so revealing, as was the thing being pulled.

    Ruth Baby, A triple is one more than a double!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. stayathomemum (140 comments) says:

    It is claimed the speech was not delivered, but it was actually written in the first place, which is still a major concern…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Nigel Kearney (864 comments) says:

    Don’t the arguments for recognising same-sex relationships apply even more strongly to polygamy? In fact, those who object to same-sex relationships on the grounds that children need a mother and a father would presumably have no problem with polygamy either. Shame on Ruth Dyson for being so insensitive towards a long-persecuted minority group.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. goodgod (1,363 comments) says:

    “…In fact, those who object to same-sex relationships on the grounds that children need a mother and a father would presumably have no problem with polygamy either…”

    Let’s take it back to basics for the logically challenged. One father, one mother – that’s the basic model. One father and two mothers doesn’t mean it will get better. Two mothers one father – twice as good for girls? Could there possibly be a gender imbalance in the relationship that would influence the child? Do you reckon? Is it possible the relationship between the two women would influence the family environment? Any chance, you reckon? Group dynamics – ever heard of it? No. No chance. Not to someone who would suggest such a idiotic premise in the first place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Lindsay (141 comments) says:

    Collins said: “I don’t worry about what consenting adults get up to. I just don’t expect the taxpayer to pay for it.”

    Interesting to see Judith Collins painting herself as a liberal when she voted against the Civil Union Bill. Recognition of same sex couples actually meant that the taxpayer could stop paying more for them when treated as individuals under the Social Security Act.

    This topic probably deserves more serious scrutiny. Is it about recognising the cultural practices of immigrants and making provision for them in the social security system? I vaguely remember reading somewhere about the Hackney Borough council renovating council houses to include two kitchens for Muslim immigrants with two wives but perhaps that is just jungle drum stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Dr Robotnik (533 comments) says:

    Maybe Hef has promised an anonymous donation so him and the bunnies can retire to Queenstown and have their special relationship recognised?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Bryan Spondre (554 comments) says:

    Lesbian couple and sperm donor perhaps ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. dime (9,356 comments) says:

    read about this in the first edition of TGIF.. the ian wishart thing. was a good read. hes getting my $3!!!

    this is typical left wing shite! they just hate traditional families!

    the left – all victims out to make the world as fucked up as they are!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    That’s what I thought Bryan…goodgod sorta got there first though

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Nigel Kearney (864 comments) says:

    GoodGod, I was being sarcastic. It seems my last sentence didn’t tip you off. I don’t know if I can lay it on any thicker but will try harder next time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. burt (7,791 comments) says:

    Judge polygamy from a human rights perspective rather than a Christian perspective. There is nothing “bad” about how people choose to live their private lives if all parties consent and are not being exploited.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. PaulL (5,872 comments) says:

    The news here is not so much whether or not the government should officially recognise “triples.” The news is that Labour has a secret social agenda that one of their MPs let slip in an unguarded moment, and is now actively seeking to cover up so that they can win the election on false pretenses.

    You know, kind of like Labour keep accusing National of doing with no evidence. Always a good idea to accuse your opponent of something you’re actually doing yourself – then when you get caught out nobody will care. Of course, in National’s case it was a beat up over a couple of National politicians…..agreeing with National’s current policy, but saying they’d like to go further in their second term. With Labour…..lying about what you said, and actively hiding it. No suggestion anywhere that you’d need to tell people about this before an election and win a mandate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Grant Michael McKenna (1,156 comments) says:

    Having lived in environments where polygyny and polyandry were practised, I must say that the complexities of human relationships defy rigid legal constraints. Many black African communities practise polygyny, as do many Muslims- interestingly the Gujarati Muslims in Durban tend not to, as that would dissipate their wealth [they are traders, after all].
    The Nepalese community in Durban has intermarried into the wider Indian community, but the tabloids would fixate on the few who saw polyandry practised- I never knew any personally, although I did know one man [just to greet] in such a relationship- he and his brother were married to the same woman. I understand that the ¿Rais? people [from Nepal, but settled in Natal, South Africa] practised that form of polyandry- brothers marrying one woman, or brothers of one family marrying daughters of another family. I think that the marriages would occur at the same time. I was once told that the marriages also served as a means of giving “cover” to a brother who was, in fact, “not of the marrying kind” as it was put to me. Polyandry was very rare though.
    From a human rights perspective, my experience is that polygynists appear unable to put themselves in a wife’s place and imagine how degraded they would feel if their wife took a second, third, or fourth husband. Even the thought of it is too shocking for most men. Polygamy is a human rights issue, because of the way women are ‘dumped’ when they get old, but not divorced- and in many jurisdictions face difficulties in seeking a divorce. Saying that is of course a statement that Western civilization is more humane in this regard than Islamic civilization, so I don’t expect Labour to be against polygamy.
    Labour seems to me to be consumed with an attitude of “moral equivalence” of all value systems, and regarding as obsolescent the values that originated in a Judeo-Christian context: values that are rejected where the sharp Islamist dichotomy between believers and unbelievers is allied to the idea that women are inferior beings created to serve men.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Grant Michael McKenna (1,156 comments) says:

    Oh yes- disclaimer- several of my ancestors on my mother’s side were polygamous. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dunn_(1834-1895)_ for details. I have way too many cousins…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Brian Smaller (3,982 comments) says:

    I always thought polyamory was something to do with sex with parrots.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Ross Miller (1,659 comments) says:

    Lindsay said at 8.25 … Is it about recognising the cultural practices of immigrants and making provision for them in the social security system?

    Answer. No way. The NZ Social Welfare system must reflect the norms of NZ Society. Labour is comfortable in challenging those norms but when their ‘Secret Agenda’ is outed (in an election year) they run for cover and argue that even if the speech was delivered it was ‘unauthorised’ or (as the less charitable might say) Dyson was back on the booze again and didn’t know what she was saying. No wonder the speech was pulled quick smart from the Beehive website.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Chuck Bird (4,661 comments) says:

    Judge polygamy from a human rights perspective rather than a Christian perspective. There is nothing “bad” about how people choose to live their private lives if all parties consent and are not being exploited.

    Burt, better still judge polygamy from a common sense perspective rather that a libertarian perspective. One only has to look at the break away Mormon groups to see the harm polygamy does to children. In New Zealand, Centrepoint would be a good example of the damage weird alternative lifestyles do to chidren. The best environment for children is living with both their parents married to each other. This is supported by many studies that have nothing to do with Christianity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. PhilBest (5,117 comments) says:

    Agree, Chuck Bird. Grant Michael McKenna, is there any connection between the “poly” relationships common to the societies you have observed, and large scale social degredation, confusion, poverty, poor health, crime, etc, etc, etc?

    None so blind as they who will not see……..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Ryan Sproull (7,025 comments) says:

    Burt, better still judge polygamy from a common sense perspective rather that a libertarian perspective. One only has to look at the break away Mormon groups to see the harm polygamy does to children. In New Zealand, Centrepoint would be a good example of the damage weird alternative lifestyles do to chidren.

    It’s entirely possible the blame lies with the “break-away Mormon” and “weird lifestyles” part than the polyamory part. If you had to break away from the rest of society in order to practise monogamy, it’d probably be associated with a lot of fucked up stuff too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. PhilBest (5,117 comments) says:

    From “The Marriage Mentality” By Stanley Kurtz:

    “…….We’ll go to Sweden for a final look at how gay marriage is undermining marriage. While advocates like Sullivan argue that marriage isn’t about children, Nathaniel Frank takes the opposite approach. Since some gays have children, says Frank, formal gay marriage would unite — not separate — the ideas of marriage and parenthood.

    That misses the point. Ideally, biological parents ought to be married to each other. Since no gay couple can get a child without the intervention of a third party, gay marriage cannot help but undermine the idea that parents ought to marry each other.

    You can see the process playing out now in Sweden, which is on the verge of turning its system of registered partnerships into formal gay marriage. The big step on that road came in 2002, when Sweden removed that last real difference between registered partnerships and marriage by allowing gay partners to adopt. Has that move brought the ideas of marriage and parenthood closer together?

    Not at all. The National Swedish Social Insurance Board recently convened a panel in which two legal experts recommended changes in Swedish family law. One invoked same-sex parenting to argue for legal recognition of three- and even four-parent families. According to this scholar, the antiquated two-parent standard virtually forces lesbian couples to find anonymous sperm donors, rather than form a more complex family with, say, gay sperm donors to whom they feel close.

    The polyamory movement has reached Sweden, and there are now Swedes who would seize on triple or quadruple parenting to usher in legalized polyamory. By the way, this conference invoked the well-known fact…. that families with unmarried parents dissolve at higher rates. Yet here the figures on rising family dissolution were used to justify the rejection of traditional dual parenthood. With so many dissolved cohabitors and gay parents, why not do away with the two-parent standard altogether? So as Sweden combines formal gay marriage with adoption rights for same-sex couples, the dawn of quadruple parenting and polyamory looms. So much for Frank’s claim that formal gay marriage will reinforce the link between marriage and parenthood.

    Even in Sweden, where gay marriage came along well after cohabitation and marriage were equalized, and well after parental cohabitation was widespread, gay marriage is reinforcing the movement away from the traditional family. As I told the subcommittee, the effect in the Netherlands has been more dramatic still. Let’s not turn America into the next unfortunate experiment.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. toad (3,668 comments) says:

    Given the revelations from Bill and Lockwood last week, DPF, I thought you would have been among those least likely to be blogging about “secret agendas”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. PhilBest (5,117 comments) says:

    From “Fanatical Swedish Feminists”, by Stanley Kurtz:

    “The years 2004 and 2005 saw the growth, collapse, and apparent rebirth of a campaign to abolish Swedish marriage and replace it with a gender-neutral partnership system that allows for multi-partner relationships. This story of the drive to abolish marriage in Sweden is bound up with one of the most bizarre and fascinating political tales of recent years: the rise and burnout of Sweden’s first political party built entirely around women’s issues: the Feminist Initiative (FI). (See “The definitive guide to equality in Sweden.”)

    Our adventure begins in March of 2004, when one of the few conservative papers in Sweden, Nya Dagen, reported that a local youth wing of Sweden’s governing Social Democrat party had endorsed the idea of replacing marriage with a gender-neutral, multi-partner-friendly marriage system. Around the same time, the youth wing of Sweden’s Green party called for formal recognition of polyamorous (i.e. multi-partner) relationships. Editorializing against these moves, Nya Dagen pointed out that the leaders of these youth parties would someday be sitting in parliament. Nya Dagen reminded its readers that the public had been promised no further changes in the family after the initial same-sex partnership legislation in 1987, and again after Registered Partnerships in 1994. Don’t believe it! said Nya Dagen. Unless the country reverses course, Sweden will surely slip further down the slope. That editorial prompted an angry letter from, Einar Westergaard, a spokesperson for the Green party’s youth wing:

    We are trying to achieve a sexual revolution and counteract the hierarchy that gives heterosexuality privileges and represses other forms of social life….The two-person standard is part of society’s heterosexual norm…(whereas it is our) aspiration to make the laws as norm-free as possible….Marriage is not the key to homosexual, bisexual, and transgender liberation. What’s essential is the battle for norm-free, sex-neutral legislation, and a society without heterosexual norms.”

    Certainly, a pro-polyamory movement among the youth divisions of Sweden’s ruling left-wing coalition bodes ill for the future. Yet the marriage-abolition bandwagon got rolling a whole lot sooner than Nya Dagen could have guessed. It merely took a little help from Sweden’s feminists………..

    ……….Sweden’s bold feminists have exposed the long-term agenda of the social left. Still, given FI’s tactical errors, we can expect Sweden’s social radicals to adopt a more subtle strategy. The Law Commission of Canada has advocated the establishment of a flexible, gender-neutral, multi-partner relationship system in addition to marriage. The strategy is to get that new system going, then subtly phase out marriage, boil-the-frog-style. Expect proposals like this from Sweden.

    Even if the Left Party loses its place in Sweden’s governing coalition at some point, it will surely be back. Say a decade from now, under some future left-dominated coalition, the time may be ripe for adopting an experimental multi-partner-friendly relationship system that, in the long run, can push marriage itself aside. As Sweden’s conservatives point out, now that youth divisions of the country’s left-leaning parties are starting to tout polyamory, we can expect future parliaments to consider the idea.

    What does it mean when a movement wants simultaneously to formalize gay marriage, equate marriage with mere registered partnerships, equate registered partnerships with mere cohabitation, and then abolish marriage itself? It seems contradictory, but it all makes perfect sense once you realize that Sweden’s social liberals don’t support either gay marriage or registered partnerships out of any affection for marriage itself. On the contrary, Sweden’s social left is simply using gay marriage as a lever to achieve the abolition of marriage itself.

    This is not how things were supposed to turn out according to the “conservative case” for gay marriage. Registered partnerships should have decreased cultural radicalism. Instead they’ve merely whetted the left’s appetite for more radical reforms.

    Once again, Sweden is showing us a possible future. The idea that we can and should abolish marriage and recognize multi-partner unions has its advocates in America, though they may seem too few to be bothered with. We ought not, however, mistake their chances for long-term success. Those radical advocates recognize something that even the moderate proponents of gay marriage overlook or deny: gay marriage changes the way that young people see and understand their social world. The slope from gay marriage to polyamory and ultimately to no marriage is not slippery by accident, but by design.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Ryan Sproull (7,025 comments) says:

    PhilBest,

    So triples would be good, because both biological parents of the child would be involved in raising the child?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. RRM (9,420 comments) says:

    Damn it, you freaks can either have sex MY way, or don’t have sex at all!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Ryan Sproull (7,025 comments) says:

    I wonder what Stanley Kurtz’s sex life is like.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. toad (3,668 comments) says:

    Oh, I see when I egt to the bottom of Colin Espiner’s piece that it was Judith Collins who raised the possibility of a “secret agenda”. I would have though she would have been even less likely to use that term at the moment than DPF, given the sensitivities over the eventual fate of Kiwibank etc.

    I mean, really? A staffer wrote a speech that contained things that were not Labour policy, Dyson rejected it, but it somehow got mistakenly published on the Beehive website. Rather different from the words that were recorded as actually coming out of Bill’s and Lockwood’s mouths.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. big bruv (13,210 comments) says:

    So we have uncovered another item on Labour’s secret agenda list, it is all well and good for our useless media to beat up on the Nat’s for the so called secret agenda yet they remain silent over the long list of things introduced (forced upon us) by Labour that they NEVER campaigned on.

    I have no problem with a couple of Gays or Lesbians who want to live together however my tolerance does not extend as far as Gay adoption, if this is what Labour want to introduce then the bastards should be made to campaign on the issue.

    Lets not forget that the introduction of civil unions was always intended as being part of gay adoption, it is another example of Labour’s ‘death by 1000 cuts” approach to social change/engineering.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. RRM (9,420 comments) says:

    Don’t be like that Toad. When the Nats have future plans that they neglect to mention in their policy because they don’t feel the need to get a mandate from us voters, that is “just common sense” and “of course not every last detail’s in the current policy.”

    It’s only when those despicable leftie parties do this that it becomes “a secret agenda.” Come on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Brian Smaller (3,982 comments) says:

    I amreminded of Peter Garret in Australia saying somehting along the lines of “it doesn’t matter what we say to get elected because when we are in government we will introduce our agenda anyway.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. big bruv (13,210 comments) says:

    Toad

    Have you been taken in by that bullshit from Dyson? (Dyson rejected it, but it somehow got mistakenly published on the Beehive website)

    This has ALWAYS been part of the Labour parties (the powerful Rainbow branch) agenda.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. PhilBest (5,117 comments) says:

    From “Equality’s Worst Enemy” By James Savage on “The Local: Sweden’s News In English” (I recommend this site, you can read up yourself on how things are really going day to day in this Socialist dystopia!)

    “………anyone who cares about equality should shun Sweden’s “Feminist Initiative”. This self-serving, politically correct bunch of pseudo intellectuals is making women?s rights and gay rights look like a freakshow.

    Every time one of them starts waffling about “patriarchal power structures”, or about abolishing marriage because it represents “heterosexual norms”, you can almost hear the rats scuttling off Captain Gudrun Schyman’s sinking ship.

    But what does it matter if F.I. disappears into obscurity? In itself, not at all.

    But people like Tiina Rosenberg, who this week apparently said that women who sleep with men are “traitors to their gender”, risk not only sinking F.I., but taking with them the sympathy that many ordinary voters have for feminism and gay rights.

    It has to be asked, after the shambolic conference last week, whether the party is really serious about winning votes. Floating the idea of abolishing marriage, and the rapturous applause for performers who sang “- man, we’re going to chop you to bits”, did not illustrate a party that is serious about winning votes.

    Meanwhile, the longer F.I. survives, the bigger the risk that serious politicians in serious parties are going to be bunched together in the eyes of voters with the extremists every time they open their mouths to talk about equality.

    And even in Sweden, which can sometimes be painfully politically correct, there is still a need for people to worry about equality.

    Why? Well, partly because there are equality issues that should matter to all of us: women are still not well-represented in Sweden?s boardrooms; boys are being failed by the education system: in many classes at the most popular upper secondary (gymnasie) schools in Stockholm girls outnumber boys many times over.

    There are also major failings in racial equality: a recent Swedish government report described the country as structurally racist.

    These are serious problems without easy solutions, and at the moment Fi is simply clouding the issues with extremism, hatred and (worst of all) the ghastly pseuds’ language so beloved of the wimmin’s movement.

    So if Schyman really cares more about equality than getting her face in the papers, she’ll scupper her initiative before it turns back the clock on Swedish equality.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. PhilBest (5,117 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull, playing “devil’s advocate” again, I see…….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Ryan Sproull (7,025 comments) says:

    Phil,

    It’s always interesting to see where being rational about something takes me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. toad (3,668 comments) says:

    big bruv said: I have no problem with a couple of Gays or Lesbians who want to live together however my tolerance does not extend as far as Gay adoption, if this is what Labour want to introduce then the bastards should be made to campaign on the issue.

    Why not, bruv? The current law is ridiculous. An individual gay or lesbian person can adopt, as can his or her partner. But if they want to adopt as a couple, the law does not permit them to.

    The Greens are quite happy to campaign on this – in fact Metiria has drafted a Private Member’s Bill that would rectify this silly anomaly, but unfortunately it has never been drawn from the ballot.

    The one thing you are correct about is that Labour are being wimps on this, and should have included legislation to correct this discriminatory anomaly in the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill when it went through Parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. big bruv (13,210 comments) says:

    Toad

    I find it fascinating that you and the Greens find Nature to be discriminatory.

    I am also deeply concerned that you think the right of gays and lesbians overrides the right of kids, for some time now kids have been used as a tool to further the rights of the gay and lesbian movement and I have no doubt that if the law is ever changed then there will be an initial rush to obtain the latest fashion accessory (an adopted child) in the gay rights world.

    The drive for gay and lesbian adoption is driven by the desperate desire to be able to thumb their nose at the establishment than it is about any desperate desire to raise kids.

    I am not keen for kids to be used and abused like this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Ryan Sproull (7,025 comments) says:

    It would require a remarkable amount of conceit for “the establishment” to think that gays and lesbians want equality mainly to spite it/them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. PhilBest (5,117 comments) says:

    Big Bruv, agree. As I said above, “none so blind as they who will not see”. There has never been any lack of warnings from people who sadly say a decade or two later, “we told you so”, but of course by then it is impossible to reverse either the damaging policy or its consequences.

    Here are some quotes from Theodore Dalrymple:

    “In the realm of culture, construction is always temporary and in need of constant maintenance, while destruction is permanent.”

    “It is in the nature of the intellect that it should try to impose order on the seeming chaos of everyday experience; but in human affairs, there are far worse failings than inconsistency, and few worse than passion masquerading as disinterest.”

    “There is, as Adam Smith said, a deal of ruin in a nation: and this truth applies as much to a nation’s culture as to its economy. The work of cultural destruction, while often swifter, easier, and more self-conscious than that of construction, is not the work of a moment. Rome wasn’t destroyed in a day.”

    “It is from social prejudice that one learns social virtue. Metaphysical thought and reflection come later.”

    “Only a population that strives for virtue…….will be able to maintain its freedom. A nation whose individuals choose vice rather than virtue as the guiding principle of their lives will not long remain free, because it will need rescuing from the consequences of its own vices.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. lyndon (330 comments) says:

    I should point out that (I think), if the kind of change in social security that we would be talking about were to happen, it would probably disadvantage the polyamourists.

    By way of comparison: before civil unions, ‘in the nature of marriage’ only included hetrosexual couples (I assume it doesn’t now). So if you were gay, you could be financially dependent on each other and still receive the benefit as for single people.

    So unless they are somehow currently classed as several couples, I imagine the taxpayer is “paying for it” at the moment and any new recognition of relationships is in the nature of removing a subsidy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    What a strange little country this place is rapidly becomming. Is this is what as known as progress?. Liarbore really are gutless wonders, they force their bent values on the population and don’t have the balls to tell us what a really sick little society they want. Why not throw all the old norms out the window and be done with, it’s what these sick bastards want anyway. As PhilBest said in his quotes “Rome wasn’t destroyed in a day” but they didn’t have the liarbore party’s help.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. francis (712 comments) says:

    First, the alternative to a single parent family structure doesn’t have to be a TWO parent scenario in order to get optimal child care results – the whole idea of whanau points to this and healthy, happy children routinely occur in societies where there are more than two parents. Second, it’s only the mechanics of trying to figure out the benefit payment system that throw up any real obstacles here. Objection on the grounds that two parents is the optimal structure is rooted in the classic Western (Christian) model.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Right of way is Way of Right (1,129 comments) says:

    Not entirely sure what the whole issue is here, but pretty sure I might like to move to Sweden!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. PhilBest (5,117 comments) says:

    Yeah, right, francis, after centuries of undeniable superior outcomes of certain cultures, we need to sacrifice our society and our children in the cause of radical social experimentation. Adults “fulfillment” is more important than well-adjusted children. Yeah, right.

    By the way, where is “whanau” now, and why is it not already overcoming the results of the fatherlessness epidemic in Maori – if it was such a healthy institution? How has it withstood the assault of the DPB?

    As the people I have been quoting above point out, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Alleged “improvements” in our outlook on “the family” and adult relationships, are, and will continue, doing more damage than good. There is only ONE “good” option. The more options you enable, the messier the social outcomes.

    The trouble is, by the time we have learnt this by trying it out, it will be too late.

    Once again, Theodore Dalrymple:

    “In the realm of culture, construction is always temporary and in need of constant maintenance, while destruction is permanent.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. francis (712 comments) says:

    Point is, preference for a two parent, M/F parenting structure is simply a legacy of Chrisianity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. big bruv (13,210 comments) says:

    Francis

    What utter rubbish!

    The M/F parenting structure is simply a legacy of bloody nature.

    And here is a wee hint, you cannot come here and expect some of us to cave into the PC point of view or indulge in PC speak lest we offend, you do NOT set the agenda here.

    Outrageous comments such as the last one you made WILL be questioned, I suspect you may find that a little disconcerting but you had better get used to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. baxter (893 comments) says:

    Well I understood what ‘triples’ and some of the other terms of perversion Liabore were trying to impose on the Nation as advocated by Dyson were, but `she also used the term ‘BLENDED’ and even I cannot imagine what that practise is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. PaulL (5,872 comments) says:

    baxter (and also some others on this thread).

    Blended is a family consisting of step-parents and children from previous relationships. Most of the kids end up with three or more parents – mum + step dad, dad + step mum. No matter how you try, I doubt you can work up much righteous indignation about that.

    As for the other constructs, I’d prefer to separate the discussion of whether the government should fund these situations from discussion about whether it should recognise them. So far as I am aware many of the arrangements people are foaming on about are actually legal. And if the government chooses to recognise them when calculating household income, doing means testing, and in some legal situations such as next of kin, then I have no problem with it. Situations that I think are both legal and reasonable for the government to recognise are:

    Lesbian couple + friend who donated sperm. We have one natural parent who has rights as of birth. One (lesbian) parent who probably adopts the child, and should be entitled to do so in my opinion. And one other natural parent who, being a sperm donor, may not have rights. I don’t see why there would be a problem in allowing that person to also be recognised in the child’s upbringing if they so wish. To my mind, this is relatively healthy. The only alternative here really is to lock out that sperm donor, and I don’t see what the argument is that it would result in better outcomes for that child. You could argue that the lesbian couple shouldn’t have the child in the first place, but the fact is they have the right to do so today under NZ law.

    Group of three of some indeterminate sexuality who happen to be happy in a group relationship. Whether they are three lesbians, three homosexuals, some bisexual people in there, or some other grouping, the fact is that there is no limit under NZ law today to them forming a household and a relationship. To me it sounds like a recipe for pain, but I believe that there are people today in NZ doing this. If the government wishes to assess them as a household for income testing reasons, or to grant them next of kin rights over each other, then I have no gripe with that. So long as they are freely choosing to enter those arrangements, I don’t see what harm it does. I don’t believe, however, that we should be allowing multiple marriage (although I’m a bit stuck as to why that is, the logic isn’t coming yet).

    In short, what I see on this thread is mostly foaming from moral conservatives. You don’t like what these people are doing, so you are complaining about the government recognising it. But the fact is that they are already allowed to do it – and that is where your problem lies, not with the government recognising the reality on the ground.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.