ACT and Social Liberalism
August 8th, 2011 at 9:16 am by David FarrarDeborah Coddington writes in the HoS:
But there is hope for equity from our youth. Midweek I co-judged, with David Farrar, a debate with the somewhat dodgy moot, ‘Politicians are even worse in the boardroom than in the bedroom’. Don Brash was host and I’ll say no more on that.
The occasion was launching Youth for Act and listening to the debaters – male and female – was encouraging. They want government out of our bedrooms, for instance, with same-sex marriage, not just civil unions. Racism does exist – Maori youth are busted for drugs, not white middle class, so legalise cannabis. Act, they said, shouldn’t just bang on about economic issues.
And here’s a good analogy they posited. If liberal parties just want individual freedom, like tax cuts, to enrich themselves, consider this: do you really think Sir Roger Douglas and Heather Roy voted against the banning of Kronic because they want to smoke themselves into a stupor?
Like Deborah I was encouraged by the debate, hearing young ACT candidates make the case for ACT to push social liberalism as much or even more than economic liberalism.
It was nice to hear passionate ACT candidates talking about the need for same sex couples to not be discriminated against, and to (as Deborah reported) argue that the current drug laws unfairly criminalise young Maori, as they are more likely to be searched for drugs.
The debate was about whether ACT should focus more on economic liberalism or social liberalism. There were good arguments on both sides, and of course the answer is in fact you should do both. But I tend to think it would be good to hear more from ACT on social liberalism, because their brand there has been unclear. No one doubts ACT’s commitment to economic liberalism, but they do wonder about the commitment to social liberalism.
Wouldn’t it be great I thought to hear Don Brash say something along the lines of “Yes we are going to get rid of the Maori seats, because race based seats are wrong – but we are also going to decriminalise personal use of cannabis, as our current drug laws unfairly penalise young Maori”.
Related posts:
- Guest Post: Liberalism: Classical vs. Modern
- DI Quinn on cannabis
- A long overdue cannabis debate
- Law Commission on drug laws
August 8th, 2011 at 9:31 am
So he’s going to remove a political right and replace it with the right for young uneducated Maori to get even more stoned…I’m sure that will go down well in Epsom
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 9:32 am
Pushing social liberalism is a good way of ensuring that even more children grow up without fathers, leaving women with the children. But then, given that many young people today grow up that way, they’ll have no idea what a difference a Dad could have made in their lives.
ACT is a lost cause.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 9:50 am
DPF says: “The debate was about whether ACT should focus more on economic liberalism or social liberalism”
This highlights one of the fundamental inconsistencies in the Tea Party Movement’s philosophy IMO, in that, if economic liberty provides the best model for producing economic competitiveness and growth, then surely the same model would provide the best platform for a diverse and dynamic society to flourish. Methinks the Sarah Palins of this world want to have their cake, and eat it too.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 9:51 am
That is wrong Lucia. Classical liberalism (social or economic) would never have allowed the state to interfere in the family to the degree it has. Left to their own devices people form dependencies on each other – not the state. I am encouraged to hear young ACT pushing messages consistent with classical liberalism. ACT was at its best when that was their guiding philosophy. The period with Catherine Isaac as President.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 9:53 am
So you know the Tea Parties social positions do you?
Please tell us how a group with 40% of its participants as Independents and Democrats thinks on these issues?
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 10:05 am
Lindsay,
Social liberalism encourages people to have sex outside of marriage. Once that is happening at the rate NZ has now, single parent households are inevitable. Morality is breaking down to the point where boys think their lot in life is to be a boyfriend to a single mother who gets handouts from the State. Government interferes because it’s the defacto father, the one that provides, therefore thinks it gets a say in how all children are raised.
It doesn’t matter if the intent of Classic liberalism is not to let the State interfere in families, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions and unintended consequences, and the more sexual freedom allowed in society, the more of an opening there is for the State to step in.
Cause and effect.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 10:10 am
Sex before marriage is fun. No amount of liberalism debates will change that.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 10:10 am
Sonny, to my knowledge, the Tea Party is a political movement that is generally recognized as socially conservative and economically libertarian, comprised mainly of disaffected republicans.
[DPF: The Tea Party is 100% economically liberal, but is very mixed on social liberalism - they have a mixture of social conservatives and social liberals. Don't mistake Palin and Bachmann for the grass roots.
Also they do have a considerable number of Independents who identify with them]
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 10:13 am
I’d prefer young people not to smoke Kronic.
But the evidence we have shows that products like Kronic cause *considerably* less harm to its users and to society than alcohol.
I didn’t know that Act had voted against restricting synthetic cannabis products like Kronic, but I’m pleased to hear that they voted according to their principles.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 10:15 am
Lindsay,
Tend to agree. I suspect that the generations born in the 2000’s and 2010’s will see how barren (pun not intended when I typed it, but I’ll let it stand) social liberalism really is. To an extent I agree that the govt should stay out of the bedroom i.e. social structuring, and let social groups in civil society deal with how they embrace the choice of sexual “freedom” and same-sex unions. The problem is that NZ’s financial structures are too dependent on what was “mum, dad, and the kids” whose taxes would have paid for their pensions. Gay people don’t have kids (though I see they want to adopt them – which is funny because there was only eight (YES EIGHT!) adoptions in NZ last year – so guess the the wheels will be greased to give gay people their final accessory so they be normal) and broken marriages (tend to) beget broken marriages – which don’t tend to produce children. This means sexual “freedom” has screwed (pun intended) the future tax base.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 10:15 am
Lucia, People have always had sex outside marriage. But when a pregnancy resulted they formed a social structure that would support the child. Of course the intent of classical liberalism “matters”. It provides an alternative view and course of action to the status quo.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 10:20 am
Some years ago I attended an ACT function where the speaker was an American philosopher (maybe Michael Novak?) who entertained me by stating that women should suffer social stigma and economic loss for indulging in sex outside marriage.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 10:24 am
Lucia Maria good god, pun intended, you wanted young women to go through a pagan ceremony before they made full use of my magnificent body ?
Vote:You must have had a sad later teenage years with missing out getting laid.
August 8th, 2011 at 10:25 am
The fact that alcohol is more harmful than cannabis (or, potentially, Kronic) is not the issue in terms of social liberty, though.
The issue is that even if it is bad for you by some standard, no one has the right to use force to prevent an adult from living how they want to, so long as they are not directly harming others.
They can be informed and castigated and pleaded with and encouraged, but they should not be forced.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 10:26 am
“Morality is breaking down to the point where boys think their lot in life is to be a boyfriend to a single mother who gets handouts from the State.”
What a ridiculous exaggeration. You really have no faith in humanity to operate without archaic rules. Japan for example doesn’t carry any of the Christian guilt ingrained in our society. They happily, enjoyably sleep with each other outside marriage. Sure they have their fair share of societal problems as well, but they remain a highly functional, respectful, albeit aging society that doesn’t require high levels of state intervention.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 10:31 am
mikenmild to be blunt, those who rant on about no sex before marriage are those who are so bloody ugly one would put a bag on their head and the second one on one’s own head if one was ever out with them.
Vote:Which is where the term double bagger came from
August 8th, 2011 at 10:32 am
decanker, Japan might be slightly different than you think it is. It’s very socialist on the inside.
On the social liberal debate, let me just add this: Neither the wisest Constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 10:39 am
Apart from Lucia deciding Sex is for grown ups who buy a licsence to root the more important thought here would be this.
DPF says;
Wouldn’t it be great I thought to hear Don Brash say something along the lines of “Yes we are going to get rid of the Maori seats, because race based seats are wrong – but we are also going to decriminalise personal use of cannabis, as our current drug laws unfairly penalise young Maori”.
Two things.
1. If he (Brash) did, would you quit the National Party who don’t have the nuts to do either
2. Will you quit the National Party becuase of their lack of principles anyway?
You could rationalize quiting by adding anti smacking, youth rates (of which you are an ardent campaigner like myself), and a bunch of other stuff to the list.
You can’t change socialists from belonging. They don’t listen.
Vote:Makes sense to me.
August 8th, 2011 at 10:41 am
These are the beliefs of people who are untethered from any sort of moral foundation. And as such they are sowing the seeds of their own destruction. “There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end result leads to death” – Proverbs 16:25
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 10:43 am
Ryan Sproull said:
“The issue is that even if it is bad for you by some standard, no one has the right to use force to prevent an adult from living how they want to, so long as they are not directly harming others.
They can be informed and castigated and pleaded with and encouraged, but they should not be forced.”
I disagree with you. It’s a legitimate function of the state to force people who go before the courts to undergo alcohol or drug rehabilitation programs.
Like any other political philosophy, social liberalism has it’s limits.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 10:44 am
Your knowledge is wrong.
There is no coherent social policy consensus amongst Tea Partiers. It is a group of Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians, Independants, and Democrats with a common fiscal position.
Rand and Ron Paul like to claim to have started the Tea Party, they are pro legalisation of drugs, anti government involvement in marriage, and isolationist.
The changes the Tea Party is forcing on the Republicans include stronger representation from gay conservatives at Republican conventions.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 10:47 am
Perhaps it does, but if so, the starting point should be liberty and a very strong burden should lie on any authority to justify using force to interfere with how people live.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 10:56 am
The best example I have seen of the confused nature of the views of some tea party members was the sign at one protest saying “Keep the Government’s hands off Social Security”.
As far as I can tell, the Sarah Palin blend of tea is simple conservatism: a return to the (completely mythical) “good old days” of the 1950s, when nice General Eisenhower was in charge of a very small government, there were no social problems, everyone was a virgin till their wedding night, never took drugs and never got divorced.
I am still waiting to hear Don Brash recant his ridiculous views on why he voted against the Civil Union Bill. Until he does that, ACT will to me remain a sad reminder of the perils of pursuing a popularist, conservative social agenda in the mistaken believe that it is the path to a liberal economic agenda.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 10:59 am
Ryan Sproull said:
“Perhaps it does, but if so, the starting point should be liberty and a very strong burden should lie on any authority to justify using force to interfere with how people live.”
I completely agree with you.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 11:00 am
Neither the wisest Constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.
“Universally corrupt” is over the top but otherwise this is right. If “the people” were good enough no laws would be required. One major problem we have is too much reliance on laws and not enough setting of decent examples (from the top down), not enough standing up to and speaking out against “bad manners”, and not enough family and community support and responsibility.
Holier than thou preaching is not going to change the world, in practise religious people can be as flawed as anyone else, and as hypocritical.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 11:02 am
gump
…”It’s a legitimate function of the state to force people who go before the courts to undergo alcohol or drug rehabilitation programs.”….
As Ryan S notes the threshold for state (Court) intervention needs to be set very high. The only business of the state re personal use of drugs should be the guaranteed effect on other citizens. In other words the simple act of using or possessing a drug should not be a crime…only any illegal acts subsequent to such use.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 11:03 am
While the Tea Party is mainly focused on cutting taxes and government spending, they have been characterised as socially conservative. I still think it’s most useful to see them as a Republican ginger group rather than a distinct movement. There doesn’t seem to be much prospect of the movement evolving into a distinct political party. Have they endorsed any Deomcrats?
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 11:07 am
Lindsay,
Yes, they did. And pregnancies outside of marriage, while they did happen, were rare. Now we have entire extended families growing up that way that do not know any other way to live. The societal pressure on young people to limit their sexual activity has disappeared. So me have in NZ today the most promiscuous women in the world, and is it the second highest teenage pregnancy rate in the OECD? There a whole classrooms today (in my area) where almost all the children do not have fathers at home.
That cannot be turned around without a massive moral shift.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 11:08 am
The problem is, our society has become acclimatised to state interference in our lives. Polls ask if the state should “allow” same-sex marriages. It is a matter of debate whether or not we should be “allowed” to take certain drugs. That the Government has the right to dictate these things goes as an unquestioned assumption.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 11:13 am
By whom?
NY26.
There have been many Tea Party candidates running against both Repubs and Dems. People who see themselves as Tea Partiers are 40% Democrat and Independent.
On the latest issue with a discernible Tea Party influence there were 95 house Dems and 26 Senate Dems who voted with the general TP position against raising the debt ceiling along with 66 house Repubs.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 11:21 am
I don’t think the vote on the debt ceiling can be taken as evidence of Tea Party affiliation. How many Democrats are members of the Tea Party Caucus?
‘Various polls have also probed Tea Party supporters for their views on a variety of political and controversial issues. A University of Washington poll of 1,695 registered voters in the state of Washington reported that 73% of Tea Party supporters disapprove of Obama’s policy of engaging with Muslim countries, 88% approve of the controversial immigration law recently enacted in Arizona, 82% do not believe that gay and lesbian couples should have the legal right to marry, and that about 52% believed that “lesbians and gays have too much political power”.’
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 11:23 am
The ACT party has positions on economic policy but it leaves positions on social liberalsim to individual MP’s, thus social conservatives can fund, represent and vote for them. They are not unique in that.
This leaves voters who choose to vote after consdering social liberalism to consider party lists where more MP’s vote in a certain way. The most conservative party is National and the most progressive the Greens. ACT are between National and Labour.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 11:25 am
This is what you don’t understand about the Tea Party, they are not a political party.
Anyone can form a Tea Party caucus or claim leadership of the Tea Party and it does not neccessarily say anything about the views of the people who attend and support Tea Party events.
That is why I mentioned NY26 to you, and the fact that the POSITION of the Tea Party on issues can be shared by many Democrats.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 11:26 am
Methodology please?
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 11:28 am
Sonny, have you considered that some Democrats in Congress concerned about losing seats to Republicans pose as aligned to the Tea Party for electoral reasons whereas Republicans don’t see Tea Party activists and their supporters as likely to prefer to vote for the Democrat Party and so feel less compelled to do the same.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 11:33 am
There is an old saying To encourage an economic activity subsidize it, to discourage an economic activity tax it
With marriage the economic activity of interest to the culture has always been the production of the next generation, probably the most important economic activity we undertake. Which is why the State took it over the management and regulation of it from the Church.
In addition certain benefits were conferred upon those raising the next generation in order to encourage the same – for example long forgotten now but once upon a time dependents could be claimed to reduce your tax liability – thus freeing money for the raising of ones dependents.
Of course our intellectual elite place no premium on child raising, but as this post shows, do place a premium on ephemeral hedonism (e.g. drugs) and thus (perhaps because of over use of the aforementioned drugs) see marriage as, well I’m unsure what, but whatever purpose it may have in their tiny minds means denying it as a possibility for “same sex couples” is some form of “discrimination”.
Nuts really
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 11:34 am
The questions given are completely loaded.
The Muslim one is a question about Obama not Muslims.
The immigration issue is a no brainer, any informed and sane person agrees with the law.
The legal status of marriage is different to being pro gay.
Believing that the gay lobby is powerful beyond its constituency is not anti gay or at all surprising.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 11:38 am
Republicans are more likely to lose seats due to Tea Partiers fielding 3rd candidates against them.
NY26 was lost to the Dems for this exact reason.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 11:39 am
@ Lucia,
Social Liberalism doesn’t encourage anything. The whole point of social liberalism is to be indifferent to it. It doesn’t care if you want to bash your bible every evening, while someone else punishes the vicar. Its your own choice.
And as a side note, coming from a hard core catholic background, attending a catholic primary school, being an altar server and the like while growing up – the kids who I grew up with, with their socially conservative background and general repressed nature, ended up with a far higher rate of drug use/abuse and unplanned pregnancy than those who were in a secular background. I can only put it down to the harder you repress people when they are young, the more likely the are to act out in their adolescence.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 11:40 am
The State also took over the unquestioned assumption of moral authority from the Church. It’s just as unjustified now as it was then.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 11:52 am
It may have been an entertaining debate listening to ACT idealogues professing social liberalism but the reality is that the ACT think tank is deeply conservative as demonstrated by ACT’s continuing attack on Maori and beneficiaries. These debates rarely go on to have any policy influence, and alike the Tea Party, usually have the opposite effect in the marketplace.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 11:53 am
MikeE,
Hard core Catholic, huh? Can’t have been NZ as we’ve been in the grip of liberal Catholicism with it’s guitars and destruction of high altars and nuns without veils and priests leaving left right and centre for decades.
Edited to add, and complete rebellion against Humane Vitae circa 1968.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 11:53 am
It almost seems that there must be a small cog missing from the makeup of some people. I refer to those who either spend their short time on earth blathering to a man in the sky or those who invest the “gummint” with more & more power to direct their lives.
I for one need neither church or state to run interference. Why not be grateful for life as it is & get on with making what you will of it?
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 11:57 am
No it’s justified – it is a way of encouraging people, particularly fathers to take responsibility for their offspring and not running off.
And given the investment that children are, which is huge, there is a temptation to not take responsibility (and this behaviour the modern state does subsidize with the DPB).
Marriage and the stressing of the commitment to it (you know that archaic til death do us part thing) was a mechanism to ensure that both parents took that responsibility very very seriously.
And libbies in their wisdom have broken that down – the consequences in our society being self evident.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
The church no longer is the sole repository of moral authority and to say Jesus the carpenter was a religious person is to totally miss the whole point of the man’s philosophy he campaigned against the injustice inherent in both organized religion and the state of that time
Vote:A move of act away from being presented as far right and towards a party portrayed as being far more interested pragmatic answers to the real problems in our society would give it a far greater voter base
August 8th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
What I mean is – it’s an unquestioned assumption that it is the State’s job to encourage or discourage such behaviour in the lives of individuals. Even when there are communistic “for the greater economic good of the State” justifications.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
Well apparently Good Christian Kiwi Gals like a bit of humpty to. (Even if their freinds don’t think so.)
Croatia sex romp Kiwi ‘good Christian girl’
By Ivo Scepanovic
5:30 AM Monday Aug 8, 2011
A relative of a New Zealand woman who reportedly severed her hand during a sex romp on a yacht in Croatia has cast doubts on the circumstances of the accident.
Amy Ramage, 28, was on a two-week yachting holiday in Palmizana Marina, near the island of Hvar when she is said to have struck up a romance with an English tourist.
It has been claimed Ms Ramage severed her hand on the jagged edge of a hand basin after it broke while the pair was having sex.
But family member said Ms Ramage “would never put herself in that sort of a predicament”.
“She’s a good Christian girl. I’ve known her all her life and she has strong principles … I just can’t believe it. It doesn’t sound like Amy at all,” she told Fairfax Media.
Yeh right. Deny, deny ,deny, standard political tatics learnt from the church.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10743660
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Marriage and the stressing of the commitment to it (you know that archaic til death do us part thing) was a mechanism to ensure that both parents took that responsibility very very seriously.
Lots of times it didn’t work. Its a myth like so many others.
MikeE (543) Says:
August 8th, 2011 at 11:39 am
@ Lucia,
Social Liberalism doesn’t encourage anything. The whole point of social liberalism is to be indifferent to it. It doesn’t care if you want to bash your bible every evening, while someone else punishes the vicar. Its your own choice.
And as a side note, coming from a hard core catholic background, attending a catholic primary school, being an altar server and the like while growing up – the kids who I grew up with, with their socially conservative background and general repressed nature, ended up with a far higher rate of drug use/abuse and unplanned pregnancy than those who were in a secular background. I can only put it down to the harder you repress people when they are young, the more likely the are to act out in their adolescence.
Oh how so true.
Vote:The first in my class, way back in the sixties at high school,toget preganat was a ravishing Catholic Girl, and the first thatI knew about being fiddled with at home was a Catholic girl.
Total lack of education and morals by the catholicperpetrators.
August 8th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
The obvious disconnect between progressive social liberalism and ACT party libertarianism is that the latter excludes those who are beneficiaries of state aid such as an indigenous people and beneficiaries. Freedom is to be low cost – just as are the consequences of holding a reserve of labour to facilitiate a more efficient free market system and under-investment in adequate provision for those in need, lest it result in dependence.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Lucia, You said, “….pregnancies outside of marriage, while they did happen, were rare.”
That is bollocks.
I don’t have the research at my finger tips but can reference it for you later. From Adoption New Zealand: The Never-Ending Story. In the 1930s (from memory) the majority of first-borns had birthdates within 9 months of the marriage date of parents.
Perhaps you meant births outside marriage.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 12:33 pm
“Indigenous” people and beneficiaries are being created by us subsidizing their life styes we need to look carefully at the distortions that this wealth transfer creates We need to separate the left right dogma from the targeting of others money at “Indigenous” people and beneficiaries problems
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
social decisions are generally economic ones underneath. without state coercion we find that the earth tends toward some equilibrium that, in the long run, will serve humanity the best. shit, no one legislated families, loving grandmas and freaky uncles. those are all economic products of our existence
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 12:43 pm
@Lucia – wouldn’t you feel more comfortable communicating in latin, rather than in english ?
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Maybe so Lindsay but it would be a big so what. When it comes down to it since the putative father of said child would have been taking responsibility, both financial and emotional for said child.
And it sure beats hands down the State doing it as it does today.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
Lindsay,
You’re right, I did mean births.
However, Andrei’s right – the fathers did take responsibility, unlike today. Furthermore, a great deal of babies do not get born at 40wks (9 months) gestational age. There is a natural variation between 36-44 weeks, which could account for births within 9 months of marriage back in the 1930′s. If not, then we can see when the rot started to set in here.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Rodders,
Unfortunately my Latin is still at a beginner’s level, so not yet!
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Rodders 12.43 – that was funny!
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
‘father of said child would have been taking responsibility, both financial and emotional for said child.’
Vote:Must be a different world some lived/live in. There used to be a separation between the financial support and the emotional support. Women were allowed only to keep house not to learn or take part in the financial world. That division served well in the middle class before the 2 WW for the low class common law marriage was both common and tolerated and the need to work often fell on both sexes Most emotional support was still the responsibility of the woman just as it is today
August 8th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Andrei, You know that I agree emphatically about the undesirability of the state replacing fathers. The disagreement I am having with Lucia is that the cause of ‘fatherless’ families is is not ‘social liberalism’ as defined by ACT and it is not sex outside marriage.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
It’s hard to talk about out of marriage birth rates in previous generations, because it was socially frowned upon. But we do know that the practise of baby-farming was widespread in Victorian and post-Victorian society, and that many of the newborn infants secretly adopted out were murdered or subsequently sold into child labour or prostitution. A much kinder fate, I’m sure, than staying at home with parents accepting welfare payments from the malignant nanny state.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
Like almost anything, social libereralism has a cost-benefit ratio.
For example same sex couples may benefit from the feeling of normalisation that comes with the ‘married’ tag, yet parentless children who would inevitably be deemed an adoption entitlement under this status could be denied their current entitlement to a mother and father figure .
Similarly, those wanting the freedom to increase/broaden their intake of mind-altering drugs (aka recreational chemicals!) may benefit from their increased liberty, but consume health services that reduce those available to others who do not have self-induced demands of our health system. This is a case of personalised decision to use/abuse, and socialised consequences. Not good.
In other words, pursuit of liberalism without fully honest assessment of the costs is selfishness, and no society is strengthened by increased manifestation of selfishness.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
No Danyl, we know that it happened because people e.g. Minnie Dean were hanged for it – don’t make it common any more than Ted Bundys are a common phenomina
And one where such children may end up tumble dried and hung from clotheslines to recall one recent ghastly case.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
Eh?
Yes, with socialised medicine, everyone ends up bearing the economic cost of people living unhealthily. That’s a justification for tobacco being taxed – user pays, sort of.
I still totally disagree with this way of approaching the question. The moment we start translating the human right to liberty into a cost-benefit analysis is the moment we’re handing over everything to the authority of the state and reducing our own liberty to only that which is approved (allowed!) by others to be good and proper.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
Lindsay;
But it has to be sex outside of marriage that brings forth fatherless children – or in some cases marriage breakdown both of which are features of social liberalism.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
This suggest conception before marriage was very common.
It also says most divorces involved early marriages and having families.
Takes a bit of digesting but there’s a lot more research detail here:
Vote:Focus on Families: New Zealand Families of Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow
August 8th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Plenty of absent fathers inside legal marriages, and plenty of incredible fathers who are not legally married.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
kk
You are perhaps more in favour of social liberalism when the perceived results accord with your world view.
We seem to have two examples being argued here – families and drugs. What should be the state’s role in regulating personal relationships and use of substances?
We could argue that it’s not the government’s business in either case. We could also argue that it is the government’s business where the community has to bear the consequences of personal decisions. Like many such arguments, the extreme positions lack practicality and, more importantly, wide support. We tend to muddle on through, making limited changes from the status quo as curcumstances change.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
No Danyl, we know that it happened because people e.g. Minnie Dean were hanged for it – don’t make it common any more than Ted Bundys are a common phenomina
Any history of the Victorian era – and almost every novel written during the time – refers to the baby-farming/workhouse institutions. Millions of children passed through them.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Andrei said:
“No Danyl, we know that it happened because people e.g. Minnie Dean were hanged for it – don’t make it common any more than Ted Bundys are a common phenomina”
—
Don’t let facts get in the way of your argument. Here is the entry for Baby Farming from the 1911 Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Baby-Farming
“BABY-FARMING, a term meaning generally the taking in of infants to nurse for payment, but usually with an implication of improper treatment. Previous to the year 1871 the abuse of the practice of baby-farming in England had grown to an alarming extent, while the trials of Margaret Waters and Mary Hall called attention to the infamous relations between the lying-in houses and the baby-farming houses of London. The evil was, no doubt, largely connected with the question of illegitimacy, for there was a wide-spread existence of baby-farms where children were received without question on payment of a lump sum. Such children were nearly all illegitimate, and in these cases it was to the pecuniary advantage of the baby-farmer to hasten the death of the child. It had become also the practice for factory operatives and mill-hands to place out their children by the day, and since in many cases the children were looked upon as a burden and a drain on their parents’ resources, too particular inquiry was not always made as to the mode in which the children were cared for. The form was gone through too of paying a ridiculously insufficient sum for the maintenance of the child. In 1871 the House of Commons found it necessary to appoint a select committee “to inquire as to the best means of preventing the destruction of the lives of infants put out to nurse for hire by their parents.” “Improper and insufficient food,” said the committee, “opiates, drugs, crowded rooms, bad air, want of cleanliness, and wilful neglect are sure to be followed in a few months by diarrhoea, convulsions and wasting away.” These unfortunate children were nearly all illegitimate, and the mere fact of their being hand-nursed, and not breast-nursed, goes some way (according to the experience of the Foundling hospital and the Magdalene home) to explain the great mortality among them. Such children, when nursed by their mothers in the workhouse, generally live. The practical result of the committee of 1871 was the act of 1872, which provided for the compulsory registration of all houses in which more than one child under the age of one year were received for a longer period than twenty-four hours. No licence was granted by the justices of the peace, unless the house was suitable for the purpose, and its owner a person of good character and able to maintain the children. Offences against the act, including wilful neglect of the children even in a suitable house, were punishable by a fine of £5 or six months’ imprisonment with or without hard labour. In 1896 a select committee of the House of Lords sat and reported on the working of this act. In consequence of this report the act of 1872 was repealed and superseded by the Infant Life Protection Act 1897, which did away with the system of registration and substituted for it one of notice to a supervening authority. By the act all persons retaining or receiving for hire more than one infant under the age of five had to give written notice of the fact to the local authority. The local authorities were empowered to appoint inspectors, and required to arrange for the periodical inspection of infants so taken in, while they could also fix the number of infants which might be retained. By a special clause any person receiving an infant under the age of two years for a sum of money not exceeding twenty pounds had to give notice of the fact to the local authority. If any infants were improperly kept, the inspector might obtain an order for their removal to a work-house or place of safety until restored to their parents or guardians, or otherwise legally disposed of. The act of 1897 was repealed and amended by the Children Act 1908, which codified the law relating to children, and added many new provisions. This act is dealt with in the article Children, Law relating to.
In the United States the law is noticeably strict in most states. In Massachusetts, a law of 1891 directs that “every person who receives for board, or for the purpose of procuring adoption, an infant under the age of three years shall use diligence to ascertain whether or not such infant is illegitimate, and if he knows or has reason to believe it to be illegitimate shall forthwith notify the State Board of Charity of the fact of such reception; and said board and its officers or agents may enter and inspect any building where they may have reason to believe that any such illegitimate infant is boarded, and remove such infant when, in their judgment, such removal is necessary by reason of neglect, abuse or other causes, in order to preserve the infant’s life, and such infant so removed shall be in the custody of said Board of Charity, which shall make provision therefor according to law.” The penal code of the state of New York requires a licence for baby-farming to be issued by the board of health of the city or town where such children are boarded or kept, and “every person so licensed must keep a register wherein he shall enter the names and ages of all such children, and of all children born on such premises, and the names and residences of their parents, as far as known, the time of reception and the discharge of such children, and the reasons therefor, and also a correct register of every child under five years of age who is given out, adopted, taken away, or indentured from such place to or by any one, together with the name and residence of the person so adopting” (Pen. Code, § 288, subsec. 4).
Persons neglecting children may be prosecuted under § 289 of the N.Y. penal code, which provides that any person who “wilfully causes or permits the life or limb of any child, actually or apparently under the age of sixteen years, to be endangered, or its health to be injured, or its morals to become depraved … is guilty of a misdemeanour.”
In Australia particular care has been taken by most of the states to prevent the evils of baby-farming. In South Australia there is a State Children’s Council, which, under the State Children Act of 1895, has large powers with respect to the oversight of infants under two years boarded out by their mother. “Foster-mothers,” as the women who take in infants as boarders are called, must be licensed, while the number of children authorized to be kept by the foster-mother is fixed by licence; every licensed foster-mother must keep a register containing the name, age and place of birth of every child received by her, the names, addresses and description of the parents, or of any person other than the parents from or to whom the child was received or delivered over, the date of receipt or delivery over, particulars of any accident to or illness of the child, and the name of the medical practitioner (if any) by whom attended. In New South Wales the Children’s Protection Act of 1892, with the amendments of 1902, requires the same state supervision over the homes in which children are boarded out, with licensing of foster-mothers. In Victoria an act was passed in 1890 for “making better provision for the protection of infant life.” In New Zealand, there is legislation to the same effect by the “Adoption of Children Act 1895″ and the “Infant Life Protection Act 1896.”
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
mm – do you have a world view? of course you do. everyone does.
ryan – “I still totally disagree with this way of approaching the question. The moment we start translating the human right to liberty into a cost-benefit analysis is the moment we’re handing over everything to the authority of the state and reducing our own liberty to only that which is approved (allowed!) by others to be good and proper.”
Yup I understand this and agree to an extent. Let’s ask the question another way. We’ll completely neuter the state’s right to constrain us. Now, will society be a better, fairer and safer place for all, if individuls are totally liberated in this way?
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 2:28 pm
The drug debate always has the pot smokers “consume health funds ” angle It would be far better if we legalized and taxed than the present illegal transfer funds to the criminal double fail system Alcohol is far more costly to society per user than mdma pot and lsd We tolerate this because of the alleged net financial benefit it brings government
The financial support giving to irresponsible parents includes no sanction on the parents so no incentives to change
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 2:28 pm
More on baby farming, see Introduction: http://www.historytools.org/babyfarming/baby-farming.html
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Shit you left a lot out Pete George.
For a starter people married a lot younger before the 1960s and the divorce rate was minuscule compared to what it is today
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
mm-
Re relationships, the state’s role should be to protect the vulnerable. Kids – the most vulnerable – are best served by having a mother and father, preferably their biological month and father. The state-applied tag to denote the relationship between the mother and father does not matter. What matters is that a decision to create a new life is matched with a life-long commitment to provide loving nurture and care. It matters for the child, and it matters for society. The state’s role should be to promote the ideal, rather than limit the non-ideal.
As to use of substances, my view is if the personal liberty to use/abuse is not matched with personal responsibility for consequences of use/abuse, then that liberty should be curtailed. Libertarians usually put up arguments based on precedence and exceptions here (eg alcohol, dangerous sports). But I’ve yet to see a rational argument as to why this principle shouldn’t be pursued.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
easy, dont pay for the healthcare of pot smokers. let them weigh up their own ‘cost benefit’ ratio. there is only a cost to ‘society’ if ‘society’ allows it!
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
easy, dont pay for the healthcare of pot smokers
Vote:easy dont pay for the health care of alcohol drinkers and charge the manufactures for the true cost of violence and criminality generated by alcohol one of the most destructive chemicals allowed
August 8th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
There’s a few people on here who seem to think the State can somehow change human behaviour so people won’t indulge in fun but naughty stuff like sex and drugs. Try to limit the harm – especially to young people – but don’t just ban things – that’s crazy!
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
easy, dont pay for the healthcare of pot smokers. let them weigh up their own ‘cost benefit’ ratio. there is only a cost to ‘society’ if ‘society’ allows it!
That’s a tricky road to go down. Are you then going to preclude obese people from the health care system? How about people who play sports with high injury rates?
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
I’m more in favour of a ‘least harm’ approach. I doubt that the social costs of legalising all substances would be higher than the costs associated with prohibition. Likewise, I don’t believe the state needs to regulate personal relationships at all. Where people are being harmed, or at risk of harm, some interventions are justified, particularly to protect the vulnerable. I also agree that where we provide support to people, as in benefits etc, that support should be directed to encouraging health and independence. Having said that, punitive approaches to welfare or health seem likely to be as successful as punitve approaches to drug and alcohol use – counter-productive.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
Let me see if I have this straight, the workings of the Liberal mind are after all a total mystery to me, but the argument here is that because the plight of the illegitimate and orphans in Victorian times was dreadful we should now be able to fuck anybody we want, any time we want and in any place we want.
And the Government via the taxpayer should increase the number of children without fathers (illegitimate) by subsidizing the conception of illegitimate children.
Is that the gist of it?
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
I don’t think society would be safer, though it might be – taking the gangs out of the picture for recreational drugs, for example. But even if I could guarantee that, the practical benefits are not the reason for recognising people’s right to liberty.
Regarding the other two, “better” and, to a lesser degree, “fairer” are not clearly agreed-upon standards.
To talk about the shape of a free society and ask if it would be “better” than our own is to ask if that society as a whole would conform to some standard of how they should act. But it’s not my place to tell other people how to act with regard to themselves. All I can say is that they would be free to follow their own conception of the good life.
And as for fairness, that’s almost as broad and versatile a term as “better”. Sometimes it’s used to refer to what is right; sometimes it’s used to refer to equality; sometimes it’s used to refer to consistency.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
That’s not my argument. My argument remains that it’s none of your business what consenting adults do with each other.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
fuck anybody we want, any time we want and in any place we want
Vote:is not that a christian concept? i.e christian USA
August 8th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
@ Danyl
Vote:I am not obese because i have performed my treasury endorsed ‘cost benefit ratio’ analysis on eating my next big mac. i way up the decisions based on what i want. enjoy a big mac now and pay for it in healthcare later on? or sacrifice the meaty goodness for my current, god like, figure and save some pennies along the way? Rugby is the same, some parents dont want their children playing rugby for your exact reason. they have weighed up the cost benefit ratio. of course we all enjoy different things and thats why we all make our own decisions.
August 8th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Andrei said:
“Let me see if I have this straight, the workings of the Liberal mind are after all a total mystery to me, but the argument here is that because the plight of the illegitimate and orphans in Victorian times was dreadful we should now be able to fuck anybody we want, any time we want and in any place we want.”
No that’s not it at all.
You made the argument that children produced outside of wedlock is a modern phenomena. We produced evidence that showed that you were wrong. You then claimed that baby farming was historically rare and uncommon. We produced evidence that showed that you were wrong.
You’re now attempting to reframe your argument by linking two unrelated ideas.
That is the gist of it.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
It’s not about preclusion. In the vast majority of cases obesity is a lifestyle decision. Would true social libertarians (a) expect those people to pay more for their healthcare, or (b) be happy to subsidise the elective health needs of their obese peers? Witness socialism and libertarianism being diametrically opposed.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
My argument remains that it’s none of your business what consenting adults do with each other.
Andrei’s argument is that it is his business, because there’s a high social cost to such a philosophy.
The reason the Victorian and Georgian social conditions are salient is because those were illiberal societies in which there was a stong moral code and no state imposed welfare system – Andrei wants a return to that kind of moral society.
But they were societies in which illegitimate children were common, a large percentage of working class woman worked as prostitutes, alcoholism was pandemic and sexual diseases were very widespread – even by his standards they were extremely immoral.
The modern welfare state was created as solutions to those problems.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
@whoisthisguy – why doesn’t your argument apply to pot smokers?
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 3:29 pm
“easy, dont pay for the healthcare of pot smokers. let them weigh up their own ‘cost benefit’ ratio. there is only a cost to ‘society’ if ‘society’ allows it!”
it does….
as said before, it is a lifestyle choice that comes with its own pros and cons. society shouldn’t subsidise other peoples lifestyles.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
Yes, well, I disagree with him on that count, but the moment I argue for liberty as a means to an end is the moment I open the door to more efficient means to that end that are inherently distasteful to me.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
With the exception of “large percentage of working class..” (you think more than 5%??), you just described large chunks of NZ. Care to score the modern welfare state out of 10?
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
Oh, I get it – you think we should have an private health care system. I’d rather keep it socialised and aggregate out the costs of individual life-style choices. I suspect 99% of the rest of the country would too.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Care to score the modern welfare state out of 10?
On what basis? Infants deaths? Life expectancy of manual workers? Relative poverty? Rights of parents to keep their own babies? Alternatives for women and children socially and financially trapped in abusive families?
There’s crap in modern society, and there are some really crappy people, but in many respects we have improved a lot of things for a lot of people.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
if 99% of the country would like that, then a private system wouldn’t stop them. thats the beauty of freedom
— its comparable to VSM in a way
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Care to score the modern welfare state out of 10?
The UN Quality of Life measurement has us at third best in the world, after Norway and Australia.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
if 99% of the country would like that, then a private system wouldn’t stop them. thats the beauty of freedom
— its comparable to VSM in a way
What?
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Setting aside the quantum (99%), I’m part of the balance. I’d like to NOT contribute to socialised healthcare and purchase my own health and lifestyle insurance cover. Wearing my libertarian hat, what right does the state have to insist I pay for the costly lifestyle choices of others?
Our health system is unsustainable, growing ~1.9% faster than annual GDP. Factoring in ACC, we already spend close to 11% of our GPD on healthcare, one of the highest in the OECD while our GDP per capita is one of the lowest.
Short of doubling our GDP in the next two decades we have no choice – people who make lifestyle choices that create premium demand for health care will have to start footing the bill personally.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
krazykiwi
As a cyclist you are a marked man! Could you afford the premiums?
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
nasska – My wife asks if the health benefits of weight loss and aerobic fitness are balanced by the threat of errant concrete mixers. She makes a good point. As usual
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
krazykiwi
She probably hasn’t factored in the advantages of a younger & fitter corpse.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
PG 3:34 and DM 3:38. You both jumped on the selection of the metric, rather than the intent. Go back to the assertion that “The modern welfare state was created as solutions to those problems”. I posit that the modern welfare state has been a dismal failure if correction of those societal ills was sought.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
nasska – there you go… bringing up necrophilla again….
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
I’d say the modern welfare state has partly solved some problems and created other problems. One thing is certain, we can’t take society and policies back to where they were fifty or a hundred years ago. Despite what some people seem to want we can’t suddenly make everyone become religious, we can’t make everyone be responsible, we can’t make everyone not get drunk and not get violent, and we can’t suddenly make sure every kid has a married mother and father.
The welfare state and size of government have grown too big but we can’t just chop them, we have to ease off them while we improve employment and productivity.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
What we have is an economic system that causes massive inequality, the effects of which are being mitigated by socialised medicine, which in turn is a justification for everyone to have a say in how everyone else lives.
I don’t know why she swallowed a fly, though. Perhaps she’ll die.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
PG
…”we have to ease off them while we improve employment and productivity.”…
Well said. It took decades to get to the stage we are at now & even then it could probably survive intact if it weren’t for those who had learned to game the system. One thing is certain….taking an axe to the beast would solve one set of problems but create another far further reaching than some of the armchair experts could imagine.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
Pete @ 4:56pm,
I agree, we cannot go backwards in time to fix everything.
However, and this is where we get back to the post, pushing for more social liberalism will just make the problem worse. Scrapping marriage as we know it, and replacing it with a romantic partnership so that gay couples can feel like they can play grown ups just adds to the confusion.
In the meantime, telling kids in highschool to wait until they are older at the very least before they have sex rather than just throwing birth control at them, or killing their babies without telling their parents would be a place to start.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
It took me a while to get through this post as I was laughing so hard at this:
Ol’ Don Juan Don.
Someone should also let Debs know that the young ACT members (delusionists, one and all, for wasting valuable time on a discredited party and creed) by no means have a monopoly on social liberalism – generally, the conservative grumpy old men who originally made up the ACT membership were to the right of Ghenghis Khan on social matters!
But wait! There’s more!
The cure for racism is NOT empowerment through guaranteed representation, or through more enlightened social attitudes (John Ansell, please note), no, no, no…it’s through legalising cannabis!
A sidestep youg Shaun Johnson would be proud of.
It’s just so disturbing that the best ACT (and our good host) can come up to deal with racism is the chestnut of removing Maori seats (originally yet another swindle perpetrated by us clever honkies) and affirmation of a widespread racist conception that Maori are natural born criminals.
I guess I should have stopped reading when I stopped laughing at gormless Don!
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 7:31 pm
Perhaps ACT feel that legalising dope would be a special gift to Maori?
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
Lucia Maria
Wouldn’t it make sense for you, as a Christian, to add value to the secular marriage brand by renaming it a “Christian (insert denomination) Marriage” which would be exclusive to a heterosexual union. In that way, a Christian who objects to homosexual marriage could differentiate and define himself by the sanctity of the vows he takes, preserving what he sees as a sacred institution, and the gay would be accorded the same rights as his fellow man. Win win.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
“A sidestep young Shaun Johnson would be proud of”
What a talent! I’d like to know why Cleary dropped Krisnan Inu though.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 8:03 pm
The homosexual has exactly the same rights as “his fellow man Scott Chris without introducing Gay Marriage. There are restrictions on who you may and may not marry (or civil unionize with for that matter) and introducing the notion that a man can marry another man does not in fact advance human rights one iota.
No the whole concept of Gay Marriage is the insane attempt to separate marriage from reproduction and to make out that “sexuality” is whatever you want it to be in order to satisfy your carnal lusts.
Of course what you nongs don’t realize is that those cultures that still understand the merits of procreation are the ones who will inherit the earth and sadly for those who value same sterile same sex relationships those cultures tend to be far more hostile to “gay” relationships than Christians are.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
Why have the government making laws about marriage anyway?
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Because it is an institution you want to encourage and foster if you want children to be supported and raised by their parents (the agreed optimum environment for raising of children) and not by the State. That’s why
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Andrei
“Of course what you nongs don’t realize is that those cultures that still understand the merits of procreation are the ones who will inherit the earth”
If the meek inherit the earth Andrei, then judging from the above statement, you may not be amongst them.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 8:25 pm
Of course, gay marriage does nothing to undermine heterosexual marriage. So why do the fundies get so upset. I thought they were in favour of marriage.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Some one really does not like homosexual MEN A loving couple is a loving couple why differentiate on the rights of a couple purely on sexual grounds many relationships survive without any sex just ask a long term marred man
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
Let’s be under no illusion, here.
The right want to get rid of Maori seats because they can’t win them. If they were safe-National or safe-ACT seats, then David Farrar and his right-wing colleagues would be lining up to defend Maori seats.
Much like MMP, really. The right don’t like MMP because it doesn’t give them unbridled power.
The right simply don’t like to share.
It really is that simple.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 8:36 pm
If faithful lifelong marriages work so well why not encourage all homosexuals to get married? They wouldn’t breed so the homosexual race will quickly become extinct. Good faithful hetero marriages would teach their kids not to be homosexual.
Actually how come in the good old days of one man one woman lifelong faithful marriages so many homosexuals managed to slip through?
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 8:37 pm
What a judgmental lot the religious amongst us are. The worry expressed over what is essentially a support agreement becomes a “we’re holier than you so you can’t use the same word, nah nah nah”.
Shows what spending your life sitting in a cupboard under the stairs with a candle & a bible for company can do.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Of course it does – it makes marriage about who you fuck and <b<NOT ABOUT RAISING CHILDREN. Actually it makes marriage a big nothing except perhaps a quaint ceremony with a party to follow.
And why do you think marriage hating feminists suddenly got behind gay marriage?
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
Because Pete George despite all the BS you’ve been fed Homosexuals are made not born that way.
It is a well understood phenomena called imprinting where a normal biological response is subverted and misdirected by early life experiences.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
Hmm like imprinting gilt or irrational beliefs or a misguided sense of superiority in you own particular branch of religion
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 9:04 pm
It is a well understood phenomena called imprinting where a normal biological response is subverted and misdirected by early life experiences.
I don’t understand how that could have happened when Christian morals and perfect lifelong marriages ruled in the good old days. Or is imprinting something some priests do?
In any case you have a weird belief of what causes homosexuality.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
You’re missing the essential ‘Truths’ here Griff…..if the Big Guy upstairs can be involved in any way it all becomes a matter of belief which supersedes logic & all branches of science.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
Plenty of papers on “imprinting” even “sexual imprinting” and even some a few on “human sexual imprinting” Pete George.
It would be an area of research that would be perilous to pursue in these enlightened times though given both the political clout of the Gay lobby and the Stalinist tendencies of our elites.
However my concept of what makes a women attractive was formed quite early and is traceable to my life experiences and if you are honest with yourself so are yours
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 9:25 pm
Then why don’t the buggers let us use the herb of the fields it said we can in their fable oh belief which supersedes logic & all branches of science.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 9:25 pm
nasska, me old bean … isn’t that sweeping statement a tad, um, judgemental?
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 9:32 pm
krazykiwi
I can see where you’re coming from but you downplay a vital point…..since I’m neutral I can see the full story.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 9:37 pm
Ahhhh I see. But I cant?
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 9:40 pm
“However my concept of what makes a women attractive was formed quite early” mummy?
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 9:40 pm
You most certainly can but you would have to concede that you could be accused of bias. I am neither religious nor homosexual & therefore more likely to exercise impartiality.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
Griff
It’s worse than we think….delusions & matriphilia.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
The christian god botherers are hardly ones to start preaching to others about Capitalism and free choice.
Everybody, be it gay, straight, black, white.. whatever – are economic units. Capitalism and indeed liberalism would argue that every economic unit should have the equal right to contribute in a Capitalist society without predjudice or impedment.
Lucia Maria has stated clearly that she doesn’t view everybody as equal. She wants to ban boys playing netball and girls playing rugby – as it confuses them and turns them gay. She wants to ban all sorts of activities incl reading Harry Potter… so she and her blog mate Andrei are immediately disqualified from lecturing anybody about Capitalism. The fact that they still preach that gay people have a choice about it is proof that they are fucking idiots with the same religious zeal as Islamic terrorists.
ACT have always been socially liberal. ACT on Campus even more so. Sure you get a few wingnuts that want to make ACT like the Nats… Franks did. Newman did and Banksie sure as hell does. Means nothing when you actually talk to an ACT on campus member and see that they want to allow every law abiding citizen the free choice to participate in society.
I joined ACT because I don’t see colour or sexuality or anything else as a barrier to being involved in a Capitalist society. After all, Capitalism is the only ideology that gives equality in outcomes no matter the person.
You have to wonder exactly how perverted these god botherers are that they see fit to look into the privacy of our bedrooms to judge others. They are from another time, and thankfully with church numbers dwindling their influence in mainstream politics will reduce.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 10:06 pm
Dénouement — Unresolved son–father competition for the psycho-sexual possession mother might result in a phallic stage fixation conducive to a boy becoming an aggressive, over-ambitious, vain man
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
sorry I get annoyed when sensible debate gets totally side tracked into sexist religious bulls… I have seen this before same old same old
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
*sigh*
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 10:12 pm
Griff
Looks about right. Diagnosis confirmed!
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 10:14 pm
Night all…..###bless!
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 10:44 pm
It makes marriage about whom you love, Andrei. It makes marriage about whom you love.
A moral lesson and a grammatical lesson, all in one.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 11:35 pm
Nice work Ryan. Doubt he will listen.
The bible also said people who consume shellfish shall be put to death, in the same book as the “man shall not lie with another man” silliness. Of course do we condemn those who eat scallops? Course not.
That is why religion is such a scam, people pick and choose according to their predjudices.
Vote:August 9th, 2011 at 12:08 am
Andrei
My understanding of marriage was about marrying who you love and want to spend the rest of your life with. The having children / sex being side issues. Further whether a marriage is heterosexual or same sex doesn’t mean that either of those side issues are in there any less. A gay couple can raise a family (via adoption or other means), and a heterosexual couple also have sex.
Your problem with it stems purely from your point of view which is heavily based upon your religious beliefs. You are entitled to that view but it is not a view shared by all or even the only view of the Christian faith. Accordingly whilst you can believe it and any private organisation you belong to (i.e. any denomination of the Christian faith) can, it is not one which should be forced upon the rest of the population.
Oh and Act being Socially Liberal, yeah right. They sold that off ages ago, there are no true ‘liberal’ parties with any vote share left in NZ. Which is a pity.
Vote:August 9th, 2011 at 2:07 am
Easy to miss the point with this irrelevent debate.
Vote:The same far-left whackos opposed to marriage itself (a position so aberrant it’s limited to nihilists, feminist nutbags and other loony-left “revolutionaries”) now cheer for “gay” marriage. How to reconcile this paradox? Lucia Maria is totally right about cause and effect. “Gay marriage” is not in reality a positive liberal victory for greater marriage expression, but a nihilistic victory from the same forces opposed to marriage itself.
To miss this is to be a trendy “progressive”, so ungrounded they jump on any bandwagon going. These people will never take a contrarian position on any Culture War issue as the cliqueish follows the path of least resistance. They really don’t deserve to claim they are on the Right. The anti-conservative side prevailing on any culture war issue trends directly with 1) MORE GOVERNMENT, and 2) more extra-educational social indoctrination in the schools. To have the ACT party totally taken over by these social liberals will only make even more irrelevent. (For example: Certain childless single career women promoting a political career, and clearly desirous of being accepted by the left on social issues, will always have the most questionable of loyalties, on: the defense of parents’ rights, opposition to leftwing social engineering via socialist spending, and the best interests of children …both born and unborn. They just don’t have a ball in the game. For all their rightwing credentials, let’s face it: they’re right in with the feminists.)
Just how important is acceptance by the left on these issues to these people? They are utterly blind to what the idealogical left – the nutjobs I mentioned – know full well about the real goals of social engineering; yet are also *highly* concerned with giving a tiny number of people legal recognition of marriage. (“tiny” because only a small minority of “gays” will ever get married anyway… what’s <30% of 1-3% of the population? not a lot.) Talk about missing the point, I think.
August 9th, 2011 at 3:31 am
Very easy to miss the point isn’t it Labourdoesn’twork… you have unfortunately done it too.
Who gives anybody the right to tell others who may or may not enjoy marriage? If Govt got out of the business of being “moral guardians” for us all then it would mean LESS Government, not more. The problem is you christians think you have a monopoly on “morality” when you preach from a book that was written over a thousand years ago that is interpreted differently by almost everybody who reads it.
Still waiting to here from christians on how not only will men that lie with other men be executed, but also those who indulge in eating shellfish… your prejudices will be your downfall.
Vote:August 9th, 2011 at 3:35 am
Jeff83 – Much of ACT is still socially liberal. Of course bringing in Banks was hardly proof of that so I can see where you are coming from.
Vote:The problem is that many within ACT believe we must tie ourselves closer to National, which means abandoning everything we believe in to get into bed (cough) with the conservatives. But one look at the party list you’ll see there is a healthy blend of both types of candidates…. which will come apparent when it is published.