A Young Nat on marriage equality

August 29th, 2012 at 9:09 am by David Farrar

I’m running two guest posts by Young Nats this week. Tomorrow a guest post on the alcohol purchase age by Shaun Wallis, and today a guest post on marriage equality by .

Megan is the NZ Policy Chair for the . She studies at Lincoln University, is from a dairy farming background and “in her spare time you are likely to find Megan on the sideline of a rugby field, milking cows, or having a few quiet drinks at the local”.

Megan writes:

I was born and raised in rural New Zealand, in what some might describe as a typical or traditional nuclear family, with a mother, father and three younger siblings.

I was raised a Catholic, was educated at a catholic college, and I go to church.

I haven’t got any gay family members.

I like men.

I vote National.

If you believe in stereotypes, you may think I’d oppose marriage equality.

Fortunately stereotypes are just made up expectations of who people are, or what they think.

Let me make this clear: I totally, completely and unreservedly support marriage equality.

I support marriage equality as a proud rural New Zealander

I am extremely proud of my warm upbringing as a rural New Zealander. I now work in a job that services the rural sector; and one day, I’d like to raise my children in rural New Zealand.  I try not to make generalisations, but generally speaking rural people have tended to be quite conservative (on the outside at least).

Before I went to high school in the city, I don’t think I’d ever even come across the concept of people being in same sex relationships and I had certainly never met anyone who was openly gay.  Probably the only thing that I am not so proud of rural New Zealand for is that there is certainly still an heir of traditionalism in some areas. Sometimes traditionalism is great, but when it preserves negative or harmful attitudes I tend to give it the two-finger salute.

I often put lack of tolerance down to a lack of understanding and exposure to diversity. Having lived in several different provinces I have observed that those closer to larger cities tend to be more tolerant and accepting. I also believe that the values of rural communities across New Zealand are consistent with values held by those of us who support marriage equality. Values of community togetherness, strong caring families, love, commitment and equality.

Last week my parents celebrated their 27th wedding anniversary. Their wedding anniversary is five days after my birthday, so every year I am reminded of what a great family I have and the fantastic example my parents have set. The success of my parents marriage strongly influences my perspective on what makes a good marriage. I want this opportunity for absolute commitment and mutual affection for both same and opposite sex Kiwi couples.

Marriage is about life-long love and commitment. It is the foundation of a family and about bringing two families together. It is not something that should be entered into lightly. It is the pinnacle of recognising your relationship in a way that is intimate yet deliberately public.

Nothing about life-long commitment, love, the joining or two families is exclusively heterosexual. Under the current law, because I am heterosexual I can choose to either recognise my relationship in law under the civil union legislation, or I can choose to get married. Friends in same sex relationships cannot choose to enter into a marriage in the same way that I can simply because they are gay.

This is wrong. Why would anyone wish to deny couples the joy of standing in front of their friends and family and professing their love for one another; undertaking to an union of shared aspirations and shared promise to experience the joys and burdens of life.

I support marriage equality as a National Party member

A lot of people have asked me why I am so passionately in support of marriage equality if I am straight. My answer is simple. I walked into the local National Party office in 2007 to join up because I believe in the principles of equal citizenship and equal opportunity. Sometimes these principles are merged in the phrase ‘one law for all’. ‘One law for all’ does not have exceptions – it’s not ‘one law for all’ except for this minority, or this other minority; it’s ‘one law for all’ – no ifs, no buts, no apologies. I don’t, or never will, reside from standing up for every Kiwi to be given the equal opportunity to succeed, commit and enjoy life in our great country.

 

But you’re Catholic you say?

The Catholic faith teaches us to love thy neighbour as yourself or do unto others as you would have them do unto you; to be tolerant and accepting; and that God will be the judge of our actions rather than our fellow men on earth.

The second argument is that I believe that we should always legislate for a secular society. The moment we legislate to be consistent with the teachings of a particular faith we erode freedom of religion. To be very clear, the Marriage Equality (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill does not compel churches to permit same sex marriages if they choose not to. In the same way, if churches wish to marry same sex couples they will be free to do so. This Bill gives all churches freedom of choice to determine whether they choose to permit same-sex marriages in accordance with the views of their congregation. I stand up for equal opportunity for all religious institutions.

Conclusion:

Every Kiwi deserves the right to marry the person they love. Marriage is a union between two individuals seeking to build a loving household and economic partnership. It is a union of shared aspirations and shared promise to experience the joys and burdens of life. Society is stronger when two individuals make vows to commit and support each other. By allowing more New Zealand couples to have access to the institution of marriage, we can strengthen marriage as an institution. More committed couples seeking to undertake vows of obligation to one another will only enhance the standing of marriage in the community. I support marriage equality because I am Catholic. I support marriage equality because I’m a rural girl. I support marriage equality because I am a Kiwi.

Thanks to Megan for the post. Comments are welcome of course, but please focus on the issue and arguments, not on anything else.

Incidentally I’m generally happy to run guest posts from people – even on issues where I disagree with them. This particular issue will be on the backburner for a few months, but happy to have posts from both sides once the bill is reported back from select committee (assuming it passes first reading tonight).

Tags: , ,

198 Responses to “A Young Nat on marriage equality”

  1. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Sensible views from the Young Knat.

    It is pleasing to see she supports legislating for a secular society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    Polyanna stuff. This post once again proves that the “marriage equality” issue is more about progressives/liberals wanting to demonstrate how virtuous and forward thinking they are. . . a cultural signifier if you like, the metaphorical equivalent of wearing a pink ribbon to support breast cancer research.

    Here’s the reality: The most basic task of any society is to reproduce itself. That is why pretty much every human society up until the present day has given a special social status to male-female sexual partnerships—the only type capable of resulting in natural procreation. This privileged social status is called “marriage.” Extending the benefits and status of “marriage” to couples who are intrinsically incapable of natural procreation would dramatically change the social definition of the institution. It would become impossible to argue that “marriage” is about encouraging the formation of life-long, potentially procreative (i.e., heterosexual) unions. The state mandating the definition of marriage based solely on a persons chosen sexual behaviour is tantamount to opening Pandora’s box, opening the door to eventual state endorsement of polygamy, incest and a raft of other perversions too sickening to mention.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Longknives (4,467 comments) says:

    “I was raised a Catholic, was educated at a catholic college, and I go to church”
    I like men.”

    Catholic Schoolgirl who likes men….Giggidy!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. thedavincimode (6,539 comments) says:

    ENDLESS LOOP ()

    They say we’re young and we don’t know
    We won’t find out until we grow
    Well I don’t know if all that’s true
    ‘Cause you got me, and baby I got you

    Babe
    I got you babe
    I got you babe

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,563 comments) says:

    I am going to get my popcorn ready. I expect 200+ comments from the likes of Chucky Bird, Andrie, Lucia Maria, Fletch, Scott, Redbitter and all the other nutbars to come to the party.

    On the post itself, I completely agree. Why define love? What makes a quickie hetro wedding any better than a monogamous gay couple of 20+ years? Christians should celebrate the institution of a loving marriage, not shut people out of it. They should be slamming the piss taking of the institution of marriage, not closing the door on it. That is what I was taught at church – love and acceptance of others. Hate and excluding others are not christian values.

    If marriage was all about procreation then surely those of us who choose to not have children are also sinners and not worthy of marriage. No?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. backster (2,081 comments) says:

    Your concluding paragraph indicates support for this also http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/7569398/Incest-parents-told-This-must-stop

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. my 2 cents (1,091 comments) says:

    Thanks for your post Megan, I don’t understand your statement that you support same gender marriage because you are Catholic?

    The Catholic position on marriage is based on their God revealing it’s first use in Genesis with regard to marriage relationship and societal norms (as He sees it) and as reiterated in the gospels by Jesus (His son and joint maker of all the seen and unseen) and then reinforced by Paul in Ephesians as part of NT (and future) living.
    The basic premise that a man and a woman together make the basic unit of society which is recognised by the Catholic church as in marriage, not same gender.

    Can you be a Catholic (label yourself one) and reject this?
    Indeed can you label yourself a Christian (as opossed to Catholic) and reject this?

    At best this doesn’t seem logical and is poor thinking on your part or you are confused.
    At worst you are saying the Catholic church is wrong as is God for saying this.
    No that’s not worst, worst is you’re a politician who will say whatever they think to get onside the audience they are directing at.

    So how come you can say you are Catholic but reject both the bible and that churches position on the basics of family and a society?

    Gen 2:24
    This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.
    Mark 10.7
    For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
    Matthew 19.5
    and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
    Epesians 5.31
    “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Redbaiter (7,640 comments) says:

    What is it with these people?

    Don’t they have any critical thinking skills at all?

    As soon as I see the phrase “marriage equality” I just think-

    “Here goes another brainwashed moron”

    FFS-

    IT IS NOT ABOUT ANY KIND OF “EQUALITY”.

    NEVER HAS BEEN NEVER WILL BE.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Pete George (22,863 comments) says:

    Good post. I pretty much agree with all the comments on marriage equality. I don’t think it’s got much to do with “demonstrate how virtuous and forward thinking they are”, it simple seems the natural position to take in our modern society.

    Regarding consevatism in rural New Zealand – I also grew up in rural New Zealand. On the surface there was quite a bit of conservatism, but in practice the community was quite tolerant and accommodating of differences.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. boredboy (250 comments) says:

    Go jump in the lake, Redbaiter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. thedavincimode (6,539 comments) says:

    ‘bater you old homo. How’s it hangin’? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. dime (9,468 comments) says:

    Marriage EQUALITY?

    How about the Bis issue?? INCOME TAX EQUALITY!!!

    We currently discriminate against a chunk of the population. People who are forced to pay double, even triple the tax rate of others!!! We do this by force!! if they dont pay, the state takes their house, their assets and maybe even their freedom!!!

    ITS NOT FAIR!

    We need income tax equality now!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    As soon as I see the phrase “marriage equality” I just think-

    “Here goes another brainwashed moron”

    Not at all unlike the reaction most normal people have when they see “Redbaiter”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Andrei (2,506 comments) says:

    The second argument is that I believe that we should always legislate for a secular society. The moment we legislate to be consistent with the teachings of a particular faith we erode freedom of religion.

    Secularism is a religion in itself (on offshoot of Marxism actually). And what secularism decrees as an article of faith is ipso facto correct and cannot be challenged – even when it flies in the face of both common sense and reality as in this debate.

    Fundamentalist secularism is dangerous, it is just loose framework to build public policy on – which is not going to be defined by robust debate but by whoever shouts the loudest while silencing the voice of those citizens whose world view is framed in religious conviction

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Redbaiter (7,640 comments) says:

    “This particular issue will be on the backburner for a few months”

    So readers might have some respite from the wave of unremitting pro homosexual Goebellian propaganda of the last few months?

    Thank fuck for that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. my 2 cents (1,091 comments) says:

    Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,465) Says:
    August 29th, 2012 at 9:45 am

    I always thought that one was first taught to worship and honour God, then listen to what He says through His word as above.
    Did you miss that or didn’t they teach it in your church?

    Similarly if you truly love and honour, that you should repent and put right yourself first.

    What church did you got to?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. BeaB (2,060 comments) says:

    So wordy! And earnest. And trite.
    Why do people feel the need to bang on so tediously about what is a minor change that will have little or no effect on most of us but will make some people happy.
    And let them dress up and be brides.
    Whoopdidoo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. kowtow (7,645 comments) says:

    It’s not equality. That is a falsehood. Equality means schedule 2 should be repealed.
    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1955/0092/latest/DLM292639.html

    Nothing should be “forbidden” between consenting adults in an equal society.

    McCroskie is right that once marriage is redefined to include homosexuals it can be redefined in 10 or 20 years to recognise African or Islamic multiple wives,which would discriminate against the Himalayan polyandrists.

    Equal rights for polyandry!Anything goes.

    What this post tells me is that the left has pushed its progressive agenda deep into the so called right and true conservatism is an endangered species.

    We need a Tea Party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. my 2 cents (1,091 comments) says:

    Andrei (1,453) Says:
    August 29th, 2012 at 9:59 am

    So that’s it.
    DPF claims all the Anglican ideals but is a secularist.

    Megan claims all the Catholic creds but is a secularist!

    I guess going to church doesn’t equate to actually believing and living does it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. my 2 cents (1,091 comments) says:

    BeaB (1,302) Says:
    August 29th, 2012 at 10:01 am

    Because you’re not listening :-)

    It is not minor to society and will have ramifications in all spheres of society as you well know!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Manolo (13,386 comments) says:

    I reckon DPF has had heaps of fun promoting this topic. The avalanche of postings on gay marriage has drowned us all.
    It must be a National party directive. :D.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    Kowtow,

    Equality means no such thing. Not only is the redefinition not seeking to change anything other the definition of marriage to include a same sex couple (couple can only be 2) and therefore cannot be claimed to be supporting any other change to marriage, but there is also a fundamental difference between a same sex couple and the other potential ‘relationships’ you refer to:

    - Incest is illegal
    - Bestiality is illegal
    - Pedophilia is illegal
    - Polygamy/Polandry are illegal
    - Homosexuality is NOT illegal

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. my 2 cents (1,091 comments) says:

    dime (4,821) Says:
    August 29th, 2012 at 9:57 am

    Politicians being people with a lack of integrity don’t see that.

    Yes it’s discriminatory but you can afford it.
    We need to pay for all the stuff that will get us re-elected.
    They are poor and you are rich.
    You should pay your fair share.
    So vote for it at the next election its a democracy.
    So what do we do about the poor?
    We want to give everyone an equal chance.

    How am I doing so far?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. my 2 cents (1,091 comments) says:

    Manolo (7,192) Says:
    August 29th, 2012 at 10:07 am

    I think you’ve said it before and you’re right.
    It covers up how useless John Key and National have been on paring down the waste like WFF
    What deals they are doing under the table with Maori and the Free Trade and their asset sales plans.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Redbaiter (7,640 comments) says:

    As for that fucking idiot John Banks, was there really any need for even more evidence of what a fucking fake he is?

    Has forever talked the talk but always failed to walk the walk.

    Banks is a has been never was and so finally is the ACT Party a complete loss.

    What an unbelievably fucked up basket case outfit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. questlove (242 comments) says:

    A lot of people have asked me why I am so passionately in support of marriage equality if I am straight. My answer is simple. I walked into the local National Party office in 2007 to join up because I believe in the principles of equal citizenship and equal opportunity. . .
    Every Kiwi deserves the right to marry the person they love.

    I wonder how she’ll feel when this finally goes to vote and she realises she’s surrounded by so many bigoted dinosaurs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Redbaiter (7,640 comments) says:

    “It covers up how useless John Key and National have been”

    This issue has served one good purpose and that is to highlight how utterly corrupt the Nationals are from an ideological standpoint.

    They only have the same rhetoric as the Labour Party. They don’t have a clue what the National Party once stood for.

    Infested with Marxists and Progressives (like Megan and Farrar) the National party has been completely white anted.

    (Its actually down to the universities. For a few decades now they have been institutionally indoctrinating students with Marxist claptrap rather than the tenets of classical liberalism they once fostered.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Scott (1,709 comments) says:

    Thanks to Megan for a thoughtful and considered post. Unfortunately many young Christians are liberal about this issue. I appreciate youthful idealism and the optimism of the young. However at the risk of being an old grouch I would have to say that the basics of Christianity have not changed. Sin is still sin. We need to believe God and trust in God and do stuff God’s way.

    As far as we can tell, given the unanimous testimony of the Bible, homosexuality is still sin. It still separates us from God. Therefore if we want to be close to God we need to accept Jesus as our Lord and saviour and repent of our sins.

    Now we don’t have the option of picking and choosing the sins that we repent of. Homosexuality is not the only sin. So is greed and lust and sloth to name but three.

    Now Megan is upfront in that she is not drawn to the sin of homosexuality herself. The difficulty is that she is encouraging others to embrace that sin. She is saying to her weaker brother or weaker sister it is okay to indulge in that particular temptation. That is not Christian. We need to encourage our neighbour to do what is right.

    The problem is that she is not believing God. She sees nothing wrong with homosexuality. Maybe all her friends are liberal on this issue? So what’s wrong with homosexuality? If you are a Christian you believe God. God made us and he tells us what is right and what is wrong. The clear message of the Bible is that homosexuality is wrong. Megan needs to believe God more.

    I would say to her this. You don’t go to hell for what you do. You go to hell for what you believe.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    Young. Check.
    Female. Check.
    National. Check.
    Rural. Check.
    Roman Catholic. Check (but dubious – has she even read the Church’s teaching on sexuality, marriage, and family?).
    Has critically assessed this issue. No.

    Yes, a bunch of anti-SSM people say a bunch of thoughtless crap on this issue. But seriously, I’ve seen so little critical assessment of this issue in the public debate. DPF’s posts are faux-considered but don’t really touch the critical points.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. boredboy (250 comments) says:

    Using Post 200 to announce that Conservative MP Colin Craig has admitted defeat:

    http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/2/article_12187.php

    “Anti-gay wannabe politician Colin Craig has conceded defeat ahead of tonight’s first reading of a Bill which will allow same-sex couples to marry. The leader of the unelected Conservative Party, who has been among the most vocal opponents of lesbian MP Louisa Wall’s bill, says is describing the likely passage of the bill tonight as “a failure of democracy”.

    Craig claims many MPs are failing to take direction from their electorates on the issue.

    “The advancement of the social liberal agenda in this country is only possible because politicians lack the courage and integrity to vote the way their constituents want them to,” he continues.

    His comments come despite clear support for marriage equality in several recent polls.

    Craig says the Conservative Party “already has research underway, and once it becomes clear which MP’s are failing to represent their electorates, we will be escalating the debate further”.

    The statement from Craig ends with the announcement that he will today be in Auckland “planning meetings, and writing responses to the overwhelming number of voters that have contacted him, concerned that their MP will not be representing their wishes when the vote takes place.”

    I don’t see how anyone can claim this is a ‘failure of democracy’ when, using scientific polling, New Zealand is in favour of marriage equality by a ratio of 2:1.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Redbaiter (7,640 comments) says:

    “I walked into the local National Party office in 2007 to join up because I believe in the principles of equal citizenship and equal opportunity. . .”

    See what I mean?????????

    ????????????????????????????????????????????????

    Just fucking Marxist bullshit.

    That her political concepts are totally fucked up sticks out like dog’s balls.

    MEGAN- EQUALITY IS A FUCKING MARXIST CONCEPT.

    The National Party should never have excepted her application for membership if her concept of politics is so deeply rooted in what is so plainly Marxist ideology.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. kowtow (7,645 comments) says:

    bhudson

    homosexuality is not illegal

    Wasn’t long ago that sodomy was .

    Now it’s a human right. Strange times. Parliament can legislate anything it wants.Including this Orwellian redefining of ancient institutions. Dangerous times.

    And in an egalitarin,multicultural world those other polys must be treated with the same consideration and compassion and lack of discrimination as all other loving adult consenting relationships.

    By the way including animals in your example is plain stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Scott (1,709 comments) says:

    Redbaiter – I have to admit you are quite right on this issue. I stuck up for John Key for years, even voted for him. I believed him when he said he wanted to get on with fixing the economy and getting people back to work. I believed him when he said we were done with the social engineering of the Helen Clark years.

    Now although he is not introducing these private members bills, same-sex marriage and euthanasia, he is allowing them to pass and he is voting for them himself. He has crossed the line and as you quite rightly have pointed out, has shown his true colours as a Liberal progressive.

    So I do have to say you were right on this issue. I humbly abase myself at the feet of your superior knowledge :)

    Now what were you saying about where Obama was born again?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    And in an egalitarin,multicultural world those other polys must be treated with the same consideration and compassion and lack of discrimination as all other loving adult consenting relationships.

    Not while they are illegal kowtow.

    By the way including animals in your example is plain stupid.

    I take it that’s addressed at your fellow anti-SSM commenters, for was members of that group that introduced SSM as also requiring accepting animal love, not supporters of SSM

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    As I recall, Redbaiter was saying Obama was born in Kenya.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Redbaiter (7,640 comments) says:

    Nineteenth-century liberals believed that:

    An economic system consisting of property rights, rule of law, and freedom of contract led to “the wealth of nations” and was a sound foundation for peace between nations as well.

    Personal virtues such as hard work, perseverance, ingenuity, initiative, self-discipline, personal responsibility, good manners, and wholesome living could put any individual on the path to a life in which he or she could become “healthy, wealthy, and wise,” or at least relatively prosperous.

    While each proposition represented mainstream thought in the United States and Britain in the nineteenth century, for the next hundred years most of the intellectual and pedagogical activity of university professors in the humanities and social sciences was dedicated to undermining respect for those ideas.

    At no point were those propositions ever disproved by evidence. Instead, a deep tribal animosity developed among intellectuals through which ridicule, slander, and libel became accepted as adequate grounds for rejecting the insights that had made Britain and the U.S. the first societies in human history in which the masses were prosperous.

    This century-long attack on important truths that benefit humanity, replacing them with contradictory information, constitutes one of the greatest crimes against humanity ever committed.

    A post well worth reading from this blog-

    http://www.popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=2729

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Redbaiter (7,640 comments) says:

    “As I recall, Redbaiter was saying Obama was born in Kenya.”

    So was Obama-

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Redbaiter (7,640 comments) says:

    Megan-

    When you’ve finished wallowing in all that Progressive Marxist bullshit, have a read of this essay-

    http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/

    Maybe you will even learn something of consequence for a change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. dime (9,468 comments) says:

    ““I walked into the local National Party office in 2007 to join up because I believe in the principles of equal citizenship and equal opportunity. . .”

    See what I mean?????????

    ????????????????????????????????????????????????

    Just fucking Marxist bullshit.

    either that or she hates maoris :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Redbaiter (7,640 comments) says:

    Not bad for you ten cents. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. dime (9,468 comments) says:

    Ok, Dime has another issue that needs legislating.

    ONE NIGHT STANDS WITH HOT BITCHES EQUALITY!!!

    Its not fair that a certain percentage of the population gets to have one night stands with smoking hot chicks while others, through no fault of their own, has to have one nighters with fatties and pigs.

    Some people are born ugly. How is it their fault?? surely they should be able to sleep with hot girls.

    ITS JUST NOT FAIR!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Jimmy Smits (246 comments) says:

    Good to see John Banks supporting gay marriage in today’s Press. Loved to have witnessed Chuck Bird’s reaction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Scott (1,709 comments) says:

    “And two Marxist theorists went to work on it: Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary. Gramsci said the workers will never see their true class interests, as defined by Marxism, until they are freed from Western culture, and particularly from the Christian religion – that they are blinded by culture and religion to their true class interests. Lukacs, who was considered the most brilliant Marxist theorist since Marx himself, said in 1919, “Who will save us from Western Civilization?” He also theorized that the great obstacle to the creation of a Marxist paradise was the culture: Western civilization itself.”

    That was a good link Redbaiter. The above quote is quite true. We appear to now be wanting to take apart Western civilisation for some utopian dream of equality. Everyone will be equal to everyone else. Marriage will be available to everyone for any reason to anyone else.

    I think what happened was that the Marxists were defeated economically. Everyone gave up on Marxist economics. But the same nihilistic impulse, to take apart and destroy was immediately redirected to our culture. So now we find in feminism for example the same Marxist explanation. Men have been oppressing women for years, and it’s called patriarchy. Once woman realise their oppression they will rise up and defeat the male oppressors and we will have a paradise where men and women are the same. Actually where the woman are in charge.

    The homosexuality debate is very much the same. Homosexuals have been oppressed by heterosexuals. They need to rise up. We need a cultural revolution. And of course that’s what we have had in New Zealand. Back in 1986 homosexuality was a crime. Now it’s an exalted institution equal to the state of marriage. And homosexuals will be in charge and within 10 years at the most pastors and churches will be prosecuted for failing to allow same-sex marriages.

    God only knows what our nation will look like if this continues. I just wish people would love their own civilisation more. I have always thought that Western civilisation was great. Now we have all these people, including young Catholics, who want to dismantle it. A shame really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. frankflintstone (70 comments) says:

    dime,

    when you say “pigs” so you actually mean pigs or policemen?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. dime (9,468 comments) says:

    i mean dog ugly chicks!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. frankflintstone (70 comments) says:

    bhudson

    you say that

    “- Polygamy/Polandry are illegal
    - Homosexuality is NOT illegal”

    but polygamy and polandry are marriages, so if they are illegal in the same way that homosexual marriage is illegal right now.
    homosexuality is not illegal, but then a bunch of people living together is also not illegal either.

    you’re comparing apples with oranges.

    people who want multilple husbands or wives don’t even have the option of a civil union. that seems really unfair on them and who are they hurting by doing what they do?

    this bill isn’t about marriage equality, its still discriminatory, its just moving the line a bit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. frankflintstone (70 comments) says:

    dime

    “dog ugly chicks”..you really are obsessed with having sex with animals aren’t you..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. UpandComer (506 comments) says:

    Where can I find one of these mysterious, legendary and extremely elusive ‘monogamous’ male gay couples of 20 years?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    this bill isn’t about marriage equality, its still discriminatory, its just moving the line a bit.

    frank, if you feel it is not removing enough discrimination, I suggest you set about lobbying for a change to include polygamy/polyandry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. kowtow (7,645 comments) says:

    scott

    the irony is that western civilization is undermining itself with all this equality and human rights bullshit to the extent that it is no longer willing to stand up for its own ancient values and institutions.

    Meanwhile the wests’ borders are literally being over run by its historic enemies…….they have the numbers,the will ,determination and ability to recreate the west in ther own image. And they won’t be recognizing “same sex marriage”.Christians ,as long as they accept second class status will be able to eke out an existence, the rest , not so sure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. slightlyright (93 comments) says:

    @ Redbaiter, 2 cents et cetera,

    1. Context what you seem to be missing, you are mischievously interweaving the Communist Secularism with the notion of separation of Church and state which has a strong link with religion, the term is an offshoot of the phrase, “wall of separation between church and state,” as written in Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The original text reads: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion

    2. A lot of Christians support the above, and many acknowledge that the conception has support in Biblical teachings, particularly the statement of Jesus in the Book of Luke: “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.

    3. Drawing on the fact religion is a matter which lies solely between Man (Woman) & his(her) God why not leave it to God to decide what constitutes sin, you know judgment and all of that, I’m sure God doesn’t need your pious assistance, and let us not forgot that interpretation of what God has or hasn’t stated is sin among other things has directly lead to the proliferation and diversity of religion (just a minor point)

    4. Bhudson, has quite clearly pointed out that the floodgates argument has the depth of a puddle, given the legal vs illegal point,

    5. The Human Right Commission has confirmed the view that celebrants have the right to choose what ceremony’s they will conduct, accordingly nothing in any of this alters religions ability to define marriage, merely adjusts their perceived ability to exert their definition on wider society. Further if on the contrary legal view which you will no doubt refer me to, there was a case for discrimination on basis of sexuality for discrimination from use of church for civil marriage, that would need to balance against freedom of religion issues in any event, additionally the opinion overlooks that a civil union couple could mount that claim against a church presently!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. BeaB (2,060 comments) says:

    The end of civilisation as we know it! I remember the Nazi-style Salvation Army youth with flags lined up outside Parliament to oppose homosexual law reform. I have never donated to them since, I was so appalled.
    One of the advantages of getting older is seeing that life goes on pretty much as always and these changes are peripheral for most of us.
    I am more worried about the feckless and fecund getting married and expecting the taxpayer to fund living expenses for their doltish broods.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. frankflintstone (70 comments) says:

    bhudson

    I don’t support polygamy. I’m not lobbying for it. I accept that I discriminate, I’ve never met a person that doesn’t. Maybe such a person does exist. I’ve met many who think that they don’t, but there’s always some way in which they do.

    I’m guessing that you don’t want polygamy legalised. I may be wrong. If so, why do you discriminate against people like that?
    no one is forcing you to do it. what harm are they doing?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. rolla_fxgt (311 comments) says:

    For me to start to listen to any opinion that religious institutions have, first they, and their companies would need to start paying tax on all income.

    Why should we listen to these outdated constructs (as that’s all religion is, is a construct to make people feel better, and abide by a set of norms), when they don’t pay proper taxes.

    If you don’t pay tax, then I’m sorry but your opinion doesn’t hold much weight with me.

    Glad to hear a young nat stand up and tell National how it should be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Andrei (2,506 comments) says:

    BeaB – the damage that has been done to marriage takes about 2 generations to manifest itself in all its pathologies and they have crept up on us bit by bit so you don’t realize the revolution that has occurred.

    Here is the thing – raising the next generation is the fundamental economic activity that any society undertakes and the best, most orderly and most humane way of doing this is to bond young men and women together, in what we call marriage, and honour and reward them for doing this essential task.

    If people do not raise sufficient numbers of children then your society dies out.

    We are now at the point that because we haven’t been raising enough children for nearly forty years that there is about to be an avalanche of retirees – this is not hypothesis.

    What are we going to do when there are only 2½ working age adults for every super-annuitant?

    This is why changing the fundamental rationale behind marriage is insanity and cultural suicide!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    I’m guessing that you don’t want polygamy legalised. I may be wrong

    Give that Wall’s Bill does not reference polygamy and neither I, nor anyone else, has a Bill in the House to redefine marriage to include polygamy, I struggle to see how anyone could be in any way uncertain that no one is seeking to legalise polygamous marriages.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,563 comments) says:

    Note; I was bang on the money that we would be flooded by the usual tomfoolery from Redbitter, Andrei & Scott.
    So utterly predictable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Ed Snack (1,738 comments) says:

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen a propaganda campaign, for that is undoubtedly what it is, run with such fervour and ferocity by our host before. What the heck (with deference to those easily offended) has triggered this, and all over the simple usage of a word. It seems a very simplistic, bombastic, self centred and juvenile campaign, but oh so pompously self-righteous in tone.

    Oh, and just BTW, no one has the right to marry someone they love….it has to be mutual, and as others have pointed out, under today’s laws there are other restrictions such as consanguinity, marital status, and age to consider. Think carefully before you demand foolish things, and the arguments so dutifully trotted out in favour of gay “marriage” indeed support any form of marriage excluding perhaps only minors as that discrimination will take a little longer to break down, won’t it. And of course you don’t mean to support such extensions and that isn’t the intent….it never is…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. slightlyright (93 comments) says:

    @Andrei

    i’m lost are you saying that if we retain the status quo, homos will magically form hetro relationships for the sake of procreation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Scott (1,709 comments) says:

    Slightly righty – thank you for your post regarding the relationship between Church and State. It has often been a tense relationship. I would say that up till the last 30 or 40 years the church and the state have been in general agreement regarding moral values. We have a national anthem – “God defend New Zealand”, Parliament opens with a prayer, and the 10 commandments were widely respected and accepted.

    However since the 1960s there has been a marked divergence and particularly since the radicalisation of the universities which Redbaiter refers to. Right now the state is trying to redefine marriage, an institution that predates government and nation states and Parliament. We have the case of Parliament saying that marriage is whatever we say it is. So this is a massive power grab on the part of Parliament. An institution that for thousands and thousands of years has been about a man and a woman getting married will be redefined to include man and man and woman and woman.

    Furthermore it is extremely doubtful that biblical Christianity and radical gay rights can coexist. With the rise of gay rights we can expect persecution of the church. I predict within a maximum of 10 years that pastors and churches will be forced to marry same-sex couples or face prosecution.

    Now you might like the governments particular stand on gay rights. But as we have seen government expansion will grow and grow. They will tell you the size of the showerheads that you need to have, the education that you must give to your children, the stance on sexuality that must be taught etc.

    We need to open our eyes. Government is getting too big and too intrusive. Redefining marriage to suit the political preferences of the day is a bridge way too far. This private members bill should die in the house.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    Secularism is a religion in itself (on offshoot of Marxism actually). And what secularism decrees as an article of faith is ipso facto correct and cannot be challenged – even when it flies in the face of both common sense and reality as in this debate.

    Fundamentalist secularism is dangerous, it is just loose framework to build public policy on – which is not going to be defined by robust debate but by whoever shouts the loudest while silencing the voice of those citizens whose world view is framed in religious conviction

    Ah, Andrei, the gift that keeps on giving. Really shows what you truly think and believe.
    Secularism a religion? Fundamentalist secularism? What utter nonsense? You make things up as you go.

    But I can understand why you are against it, because you would love everything to based on religion, well, your specific narrow definition of Christianity.

    Silenced? How have you or any of the opponents of the bill been silenced? You have had the chance to express your views extensively here. I guess what you don’t like that your “arguments” and views are debated, discussed and most effectively countered and debunked.

    So your view of free speech is that you can say what you like and it has to stand unanswered and unchallenged? Clearly this is merely the unfettered arrogance of the privileges the religious have enjoyed.

    Just questioning your arguments suddenly amounts to “shouting and silencing’. In that context your accusation of secularism being a Marxist concept is not only woefully wrong, but heavily ironic.

    You are clearly exhibit A on why secularism is required and good thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. David Garrett (6,461 comments) says:

    Yawn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. frankflintstone (70 comments) says:

    bhudson,

    isn’t it called the marriage equality bill, or something? so surely it should at least attempt to end marriage equality. Its just nonsense to call it that.

    is polygamy going to be the end of western civilisation too? and like I said, they can’t even get a civil union.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Scott (1,709 comments) says:

    rolla_fxgt at 11:30 AM

    Thank you for your concern about the churches not paying enough tax. I appreciate that government is already not big enough in some people’s view. That we are just not paying enough tax to fund all the government programs that some people would want.

    So obviously in your view it is very unfair that the parishioner who puts $50 a week in the collection plate, which is already income that has been taxed, is expecting that that $50 should go to the church? Obviously in your view the government should take another slice of that $50? I mean that person has already paid tax on that money. Now you want the government to take some more tax?

    Is that really your argument? You want more government and more tax?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    More brain dead twaddle from someone lacking any real life experience.

    Here’s what ignorant people like her don’t understand: you don’t understand marriage until you meet someone you want to marry.

    DPF has commented that younger NZers like her overwhelmingly support gay marriage, well that is because most of them aren’t married!!! they lack the perspective of someone like myself.

    She is also being logically inconsistent with her argument and repeating the disingenuous tactics so common in this debate, she said:

    “Nothing about life-long commitment, love, the joining or two families is exclusively heterosexual.”

    Wrong.

    Marriage values represent the biological ideal for reproducing humans AND THIS IS THE ONLY INTEREST THE STATE EVER HAD IN MARRIAGE.

    Reproducing little people TOGETHER WITH YOUR LOVER is an exclusive heterosexual component to society.

    She also said:

    “This is wrong. Why would anyone wish to deny couples the joy of standing in front of their friends and family and professing their love for one another; undertaking to an union of shared aspirations and shared promise to experience the joys and burdens of life.”

    No one is bloody well denying that reality now for crying out loud. Is this just a cut and paste from the civil unions debate?

    No one is being denied legal equality, no one is being denied happiness, no one is being denied a ceremony, joining of families, life long love, social acceptance, celebrations, or even the exchanging of wedding rings.

    Framing this debate as “marriage EQUALITY” frames the debate in a disingenuous direction from the get go, it is ridiculous how adverse people are to developing a rational argument on this issue.

    But don’t worry, this debate has been reduced from ‘ideals’ to power politics and the resultant shallow nonsense that goes with it, so you will get your redefinition and you can all wax lyrical about how you are all so damned clever and ‘progressive’.

    The truth, however, is very different and the greatest loss to society isn’t marriage, it is the ability to bloody well think, debate correctly.

    God help us if this happens on a critical issue to out nation (and it will).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Andrei (2,506 comments) says:

    ’m lost are you saying that if we retain the status quo, homos will magically form hetro relationships for the sake of procreation?

    No I am telling you that over the past forty years we have lost sight of the fact that procreation is the most important thing we do – our survival as a culture, as a nation depends upon it.

    The gay “marriage” debate is a symptom of a cultural malaise and if we don’t wake up pronto we gone burgers – a more dynamic people will replace us and I can tell you for nothing gay marriage will not be part of their cultural tableau

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    frankflintstone,

    No, actually it is the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill.

    It will address inequality for same sex couple vis-a-vis marriage. If anyone feels there is discrimination for other relationships that should be addressed, they can go ahead and lobby for an amendment for their cause.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    There are several points that need to be considered with this issue that aren’t, not the least of which WHY the state was even interested in marriage in the first place.

    There are the personal ‘wants’ issues of love and happiness that seems to be the primary objective of most people on this debate.

    Then there are the more dispassionate issues on how the institution of marriage benefits/influences society.

    On the first point, I agree, gay people should not be discriminated against by the state for religious or any other reason, the state has no mandate to uphold the particular beliefs of any religion.

    On the second point things become more cloudy.

    Marriage has value not only for the individuals involved, but for society as a whole. This value is related to it being a potential stabilizing influence on human relationships and communities.

    This is where I think we have to look at the situation in a more dispassionate way.
    We have to define the differences between gay/straight, the respective roles these sexual orientations play, and we have to look at our biology and reproductive habits and how these affect the society we all share in.

    I argue that this is where the true interest in marriage is for the state.

    Marriage ideals happen to coincide with the biological ideal for raising happy healthy human children and therefore happy healthy new citizens.
    Most people that choose to marry end up having genetic offspring due to the fact that the situation is ideal for human procreation (ie, we are compelled by our biology).

    When problems face society like broken homes, child poverty, and other issues caused by unstable relationships, I think strengthening heterosexual relationships and encouraging commitment makes a lot of sense.

    The reason I think marriage should remain an exclusive heterosexual institution is because I think it is necessary to help uphold the biological ideal for raising children and stable families, and I argue that this is the only interest the state actually has in the institution. Personal happiness in itself is not enough to compel the state, but legal equality (civil unions) is important for matters of individual rights.

    Because heterosexual couples have the exclusive ability to reproduce genetic offspring, an exclusive relationship tradition is not out of order to be officially recognised by the state.
    Gay people are not straight people, there are obvious limits that biology has placed upon this part of humanity.

    So in summary, for personal happiness, there should be equality based on legal rights and relationship recognition by the state.

    For the tradition of marriage (that so far has always been exclusively heterosexual), there should be a retention of the staus quo for the value it adds to society being consistent with the biological ideal for producing children, which by definition, is always going to be a heterosexual majority.

    I see no issue in recognising the special role that heterosexual couples play in society, yes marriage is currently exclusive, but not because of a human rights disparity, it is exclusive because of human biology

    Being different is absolutely ok, pretending you’re not, however, isn’t in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with accepting there are things we just can’t be or do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. davidp (3,540 comments) says:

    It’s a miracle! God spoke to me last night. He told me that he is completely fine with gay marriage. He also told me that there are a lot of nutbars running around using him as an excuse for their own intolerant views. He instructed me to find these people and to stone them to death, Old Testament style. Who am I to argue with God?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    Furthermore it is extremely doubtful that biblical Christianity and radical gay rights can coexist.

    Just what do you exactly mean by “biblical” Christianity? What other types of (“non-biblical?”) Christianity are there?
    And what are “radical” gay rights? Which rights of gays do you consider radical?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Redbaiter (7,640 comments) says:

    “Who am I to argue with God?”

    Dunno, but if he’s wasting his time talking to idiots like you he must have fuck all to do these days.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Redbaiter (7,640 comments) says:

    David Garret- “Yawn.”

    Yeah Dave, all you’ve ever been able to contribute on any subject really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. beautox (430 comments) says:

    And why can’t someone marry their dog? All the arguments that apply to gay marriage apply also to man-dog love..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. cha (3,779 comments) says:

    I have never donated to them since, I was so appalled.

    Me too BeaB.

    For me it was the petition circulating around my workplace that was appalling and since then I’ve done my best to ignore the sallies. I recall being surprised at the time by the opposition from the Māori linesmen, who in the main were followers of the Ratana movement, to the sallies and their meddling and from memory the only support came from the few traditional church goers and the lone devil dodger.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Don the Kiwi (1,599 comments) says:

    Well, good on Megan for being up front and honest.

    Sadly, to claim that she is Catholic is to tell us all that she doesn’t understand Catholic teaching on Marriage and Morality, and that to agree with SSM is to disagree with the teaching of the Church, and the express declaration of our NZ Catholic bishops.
    That means she is out of step with the Church, and not truly Catholic.

    She is what is known as a Cafeteria Catholic – one who picks and choses what teaching she wishes to take on board.

    Unfortunately, this is a result of poor catechesis over the past four decades, and demonstrates how currupted the teaching has become in Catholic colleges. There is a major move under way now to correct the abberations of the recent past.

    In about forty years time, Megan will understand how wrong her decision is when she sees the results of the removal of the prime building block of Western civilisation. I hope she won’t be too late to try to correct the error. In the meantime, I wish her well, and will pray for her.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Paul Williams (876 comments) says:

    Liberal Minded Kiwi said:

    I am going to get my popcorn ready. I expect 200+ comments from the likes of Chucky Bird, Andrie, Lucia Maria, Fletch, Scott, Redbitter and all the other nutbars to come to the party.

    It was a safe bet and they’ve proved you right.

    Congrats Megan on your clear and well reasoned contribution. I hope you’re not disappointed with the discussion that’s followed? Sadly, most commenters at kiwiblog are stuck on broadcast, never on receive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. iMP (2,245 comments) says:

    Gay Political Lobby tactics ‘outed’ today, and their patronising attitude toward Maori, Mormons and Pacific islanders. Oops. Own goal.

    http://conzervative.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/political-gay-lobby-tactics-exposed-how-to-manipulate-the-public

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Don the Kiwi (1,599 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda
    11.48.

    Excellent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Scott (1,709 comments) says:

    “Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,466) Says:
    August 29th, 2012 at 11:33 am
    Note; I was bang on the money that we would be flooded by the usual tomfoolery from Redbitter, Andrei & Scott.
    So utterly predictable.”

    What was predictable Liberal minded Kiwi is that DPF would post on this topic again! It has become an obsession with him. I mean even Liberal minded fellows like you must think this is a bit much? Almost every day, post after post, on same-sex marriage.

    Now sure we comment on this issue. I guess, like DPF, we think this is a really big deal.

    The government will say that marriage is what they say it is. That is a big deal. The fundamental redefinition of marriage imposed by the State. Who knows what they will do next? Perhaps they will tell you how big your showerhead should be? Perhaps they will tell you whether you can smoke cigarettes or not? Perhaps they will tell your children what they can have on their school lunches?

    I know Liberals like big government. But even you must start getting qualms about how big government is getting?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. rolla_fxgt (311 comments) says:

    @ Scott

    No less govt programs, and also less tax on everyone, just for churches and their companies to share the tax burden.

    But I guess the obvious isn’t that obvious to some.

    And your argument about a parishioner giving taxed income to the church, equally applies to any spending. Using that logic, we should have no company tax, no GST etc
    Churches are no different to other entertainment/community organisations, and as such should pay tax.
    Why should Sanitarium pay little tax just because its owned by a religious organisation. Yet a motor racing curcuit owned by a car club have to pay tax?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. kowtow (7,645 comments) says:

    Wall herself has said it’s about equality and ending discrimination.

    Which of course is typical leftist obfuscation.

    It’s about her pushing a narrow, agenda based attempt to legislate homosexual marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Viking2 (11,146 comments) says:

    My luchtime is way to short to read all this bile and homophobia. Thank goodness for that, I think I will just read the news or look at the weather. Its sainer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. frankflintstone (70 comments) says:

    bhudson

    I’m sure I heard louisa wall call it that this morning. She did keep going on about it being all about equality, but then she dodged the issue of polygamy just like you’re doing.

    what is wrong with it? surely its not going to have to take a bill before parliament for you to answer this

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    But even you must start getting qualms about how big government is getting?

    Actually, one could argue, government is getting a bit smaller with this bill. By allowing same sex marriage it is merely removing an unnecessary restriction to personal freedom.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. iMP (2,245 comments) says:

    Let’s get more progressive. THREESOME MARRIAGES, here they come…(why should they be denied “equality:” and “rights”?).

    “Three-person civil union sparks controversy in Brazil BBC News 28 Aug 2012.”

    A notary in the Brazilian state of Sao Paulo has sparked controversy by accepting a civil union between three people. Public Notary Claudia do Nascimento Domingues has said the man and two women should be entitled to family rights. She says there is nothing in law to prevent such an arrangement. But the move has angered some religious groups, while one lawyer described it as “absurd and totally illegal”. The three individuals, who have declined to speak to the press, have lived in Rio de Janeiro together for three years and share bills and other expenses. Ms Domingues says they have already opened a joint bank account, which is also not prohibited by any law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    Because heterosexual couples have the exclusive ability to reproduce genetic offspring, an exclusive relationship tradition is not out of order to be officially recognised by the state.

    Astonishing statement, blatantly oblivious to the fact that many lesbian couples and to some lesser extend gay couples have children.

    Also, as pointed out on numerous occasions, marriage is simply not only and exclusively about reproduction.
    If anything, it is this reduction of marriage to one very narrow aspect that devalues and disrespects the institution of marriage more than anything else.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. kowtow (7,645 comments) says:

    Big government. Legislating happiness and equality for all.

    It is actually a very dangerous growth in the role of the state. As Orwell warned it is now even more actively involved in private life and redefining age old institutions. What next?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. boredboy (250 comments) says:

    iMP I understand the Young Nats were the group that proposed New Zealand National support gay adoption, a remit that was subsequently passed. So yes I assume the Young Nats are in support of marriage equality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Andrei (2,506 comments) says:

    Also, as pointed out on numerous occasions, marriage is simply not only and exclusively about reproduction.

    And no matter how many times you “point it out” it remains what it always was Bollocks.

    I have all sorts of relationships with all sorts of people and the Government has no stake in them and no business for being involved in them.

    The one with my wife is different – because of children, the one with my business partners is different because of assigning responsibilities for liabilities. The one with the guys I go shooting with is none of the Governments damn business

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Jimmy Smits (246 comments) says:

    Scott (1,045) Says:
    August 29th, 2012 at 10:20 am

    Thanks to Megan for a thoughtful and considered post. The problem is that she is not believing God. She sees nothing wrong with homosexuality. Maybe all her friends are liberal on this issue? So what’s wrong with homosexuality? If you are a Christian you believe God. God made us and he tells us what is right and what is wrong. The clear message of the Bible is that homosexuality is wrong. Megan needs to believe God more. I would say to her this. You don’t go to hell for what you do. You go to hell for what you believe.

    Paul Williams (710) Says:
    August 29th, 2012 at 12:02 pm

    Congrats Megan on your clear and well reasoned contribution. I hope you’re not disappointed with the discussion that’s followed? Sadly, most commenters at kiwiblog are stuck on broadcast, never on receive.

    The funniest thing about these posts is it always shows you who the Pharisees are that claim to be Christians, and who the Samaritans are, who may not necessarily be Christian, but are more loving and neighbourly to their fellow human beings.

    I also love that Scott finds the opportunity to condemn her to Hell, when it’s hard enough for his religion to recruit people let alone have a young person who is Catholic. Thankfully, as time goes on, the number of religious people will decline and old meatheads like Scott will die out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Lucia Maria (2,208 comments) says:

    I also love that Scott finds the opportunity to condemn her to Hell ..

    Scott does not condemn Megan to Hell. He merely warns against what might get a person to Hell (I think he’s wrong, btw). It’s the equivalent to warning people to look before they cross the road, lest they get run over. That’s not condemning someone to death by vehicle!

    Meanwhile, Liberal Minded Kiwi proclaims victory over his opinion that various commenters would turn up, strangely ommitting those that did not as of 11:33am who hadn’t, including myself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Megan (12 comments) says:

    Hi all,

    Thanks for your comments. I have found them a mixture of encouraging, amusing and some downright bizzare!

    I appreciate that we all have different views and I am a strong believer that differences in opinion are the foundation for a healthy debate. For the fellow Christian commenter’s, I appreciate the sentiments you express, especially those who of you who plan to pray for me. Likewise, I’ll pray for tolerance and acceptance in your hearts.

    I’m looking forward to the first reading of the bill tonight which unfortunately due to the joys of rural broadband I’ll be unable to watch!

    Meg :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Redbaiter (7,640 comments) says:

    Good grief Jimmy, you and the rest of your preaching pontificating secular progressive sect come across twice as sanctimonious and self righteous as any of the Christians commenting here.

    You can’t see it of course.

    Self awareness has always been one of the leftist’s weakest points.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Mark (1,366 comments) says:

    It would be fascinating to hear this young nats argument for supporting gay adoption. Personally I dont have a concern about gay marriage however as a result of accepting Gay marriage there is implied acceptance of gay adoption then I would oppose gay marraige. Adoption is not about gay or hetrosexual rights, it is about the rights and welfare of the child and is an entirely different debate

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Redbaiter (7,640 comments) says:

    Meg- “Likewise, I’ll pray for tolerance and acceptance in your hearts.”

    That comes across as very arrogant, patronising and insulting Meg.

    Especially as its not about either tolerance or acceptance.

    Maybe you’d like to apologise and rephrase?

    Mark- “It would be fascinating to hear this young nats argument for supporting gay adoption. ”

    Not so for me. The young Nats are Marxist indoctrinated traitors to the founding principles of the National party.

    They should all have joined Labour, the real home for people with an unhealthy obsession with “equality”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Scott (1,709 comments) says:

    No Jimmy – if you are a Christian you need to do God’s will. It is not loving and kind to encourage people in their sins. In the same way it is not loving and kind to tempt a recovering alcoholic with a bottle of whiskey. The loving thing to do is to try and dissuade them from their sins.

    I haven’t condemned her to to hell. I don’t have the power to do that. Which is probably just as well.

    I am just warning her that her beliefs are important. We can go God’s way or we can go the world’s way. One way there is life and the other way there is death.

    However my post was to a person who claims to be Christian. You cannot claim to be Christian and deliberately choose to disobey God and what he tells us to do in his word.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Astonishing statement, blatantly oblivious to the fact that many lesbian couples and to some lesser extend gay couples have children.

    Your problem is that you have your bigot radar turned up to such high voltage that you completely missed the point I was making.

    Two women can’t make a baby, two men can’t make a baby, therefore the State’s interest in marriage isn’t relevant to them

    Think about it dispassionately from the interest of the state.

    Also consider that gay youth are almost always born to straight parents and raised in straight families.

    We need to look at that reality and understand that heterosexual couples have an ‘expanded’ role to play in society, the state clearly has an interest in assisting this to happen, marriage ideals also represent the biological ideal for raising happy healthy children (gay and straight), so, what is wrong with recognising this institution as exclusively heterosexual at a state level? The State recognises the Plunket society, is that a violation of human rights?

    The fact that minority groups exist within the general breeding population is absolutely irrelevant.

    What is astonishing is that you roundly ignore the reality of where the vast majority of new people come from.

    I will say it again, the only interest the state ever had in marriage was to do with heterosexual procreation, so lets drop the feel good irrational crap and debate why that should change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Pete George (22,863 comments) says:

    If it was possible for marriage equality to lead to polygamy then should it be just as likely for polygamy to lead to marriage equality? Has that sloped been slipped in Utah? West Africa? Kenya? Nigeria? Muslim countries?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Megan (12 comments) says:

    The Young Nats support adoption by same sex couples too. We brought that remit to the floor of the main National party conference earlier year and it was passed. If you google it i’m sure you’ll find some press on it- and I’m Sure DPF blogged on this issue as well.

    My lunchbreak is over now, enjoy your debate!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Pete George (22,863 comments) says:

    Yes Megan, that’s been well covered here. Good to see National listening to the up and coming generation. There’s also a significant proportion of baby boomers who have been quite open minded towards sexuality and marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    The one with my wife is different – because of children, the one with my business partners is different because of assigning responsibilities for liabilities. The one with the guys I go shooting with is none of the Governments damn business

    Exactly.

    And the happiness of gay couples (or any couple) IS NONE OF THE STATES DAMNED BUSINESS!.

    Who the hell here is seriously going to argue that the interest the state has in marriage is anything other than heterosexual procreation and the benefits to society of stable heterosexual relationships?

    This issue is really about compelling the state to stamp a moral approval on homosexuality, and that is none of the states damned business either for the positive or negative or the morality involved.

    The activists behind this are guilty of exactly the same sin they so vehemently condemn the Christian church for – legislating morality!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Andrei (2,506 comments) says:

    Interestingly enough there was a short period when the Protestant Christians of central Europe permitted and even encouraged polygamy. When they produced the legislation for it it had a sunset clause which allowed for polygamous marriages to be celebrated during a ten year window.

    And the reason for this?

    Well the population of central Europe had been decimated by the thirty years war, particularly hard hit were the young men but over all the population had declined to less than thirty percent of what it had been.

    And the Ottomans were threatening, they had advanced already through south eastern Europe and were about to arrive at the gates of Vienna.

    Thus the population had to be replenished and quickly.

    And so it was done and the Turks were in time driven back.

    Marriage is about replenishing the population and perpetuating your culture. QED

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Scott (1,709 comments) says:

    rolla_fxgt (264) Says: August 29th, 2012 at 12:09 pm “Why should Sanitarium pay little tax just because its owned by a religious organisation. Yet a motor racing curcuit owned by a car club have to pay tax?”

    Don’t know sorry about the tax situation regarding sanitarium? My understanding is that because a church is a charity then it falls under the same tax regime as other charities. With the church there is no profit and payment to shareholders, just the same as in a secular organisations such as Foundation for the Blind. So if you are going to tax churches then you would need to look at taxing other charitable organisations.

    I think churches do a lot of good. And so do other charities as well. If you start taxing churches and other charities then all you will do is diminish their contribution to community life. And of course you will increase the amount of government spending which will be needed to take up the slack of what the churches and other charities have previously been doing.

    To be honest with you and completely blunt – I suspect you are a fellow that used to go to church and has stopped going to church. And all of this, why shouldn’t churches pay tax, is a bit of a rationalisation for why you are not going to church. Maybe if you went to church and saw the good that was being done you would change your mind.
    I know you can be a Christian without going to church. But you won’t be a very good Christian.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. slightlyright (93 comments) says:

    @Redbaiter, as an young nat that is pretty insulting, but then probably in keeping with your previous confused rantings, for reference however we as Young Nats are referring to EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW which you have clearly mixed up with the socialist concept of EQUALITY OF OUTCOME two very distinct concepts, one of which is a very fundamental founding principle of the National party last time I checked, prehaps its you that doesn’t belong

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Pete George (22,863 comments) says:

    Slightlyright – being insulted by Redbaiter is badge of honour here although ‘pretty insulting’ is relatively mild. He/she belongs to a tiny group whose principle concept is EQUALITY FOR US, EVERYONE ELSE SUCKS.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    for reference however we as Young Nats are referring to EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW which you have clearly mixed up with the socialist concept of EQUALITY OF OUTCOME two very distinct concepts,

    Oh ok.

    So I guess we can expect the ‘young Gnats ‘ to side with the Greens on providing the “in work payment” to beneficiaries then??

    Because they argue this issue exactly as you do, “equality before the law”.

    The young gnats appear to be deeply confused about an awful lot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. frankflintstone (70 comments) says:

    Peter George,

    gay marriage doesn’t lead to polygamy..and vice versa

    its just that if we had “marriage equality”, we would have polygamy..

    are you against polygamy? If people make the “marriage equality” argument then there is no argument for denying people the right to marry the 2 people they love

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. slightlyright (93 comments) says:

    Well no because an in-work payment is by definition a payment to those in work, that is the qualifying criteria, how simple are you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    Two women can’t make a baby, two men can’t make a baby, therefore the State’s interest in marriage isn’t relevant to them

    Think about it dispassionately from the interest of the state.

    An infertile couple cannot make babies (unless the use the same method as gay and lesbians)
    An elderly couple cannot make babies.

    Does the state have no interest in their marriage? Should they not allowed to be married.

    It has nothing to do with bigorty, but inconsistency. By reducing the value of marriage to sole reproductive purposes (and you do that merely to try, unsuccessfully, to some exclude homosexuals) you (and Andrei) are the ones disrespecting, redefining and devaluing marriage.

    @Andrei The one with my wife is different – because of children

    Only because of the children? Your relationship with your wife is no different from the relationships you have business associates, merely because you have children? That’s it?

    Your wife must feel very lucky then that she was able to bear children, otherwise she would be just another business partner.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Pete George (22,863 comments) says:

    its just that if we had “marriage equality”, we would have polygamy..

    No, that’s an odd claim. You do realise the bill is about marriage between couples don’t you?

    One is not equal to two or three or however many multiples you go to.

    And no one is asking for polygamy, or any other variant, so they are non-issues. No one is asking for Christian couples to be crucified together either. There are a lot of things such as polygamy that have no relevance to the bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. frankflintstone (70 comments) says:

    I’m not sure what you mean exactly but why deny anyone the right to marry the people they love if they all agree.

    are you sure that no one in new zealand doesn’t want polygamy? I’m sure there are some people

    why has polygamy have no relevance to this bill when people like you keep referring to marriage equality

    I’ll ask it again. Are you against polygamy? What is the fundamental problem with it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Well no because an in-work payment is by definition a payment to those in work, that is the qualifying criteria, how simple are you?

    The Grens argue that it is a violation of human rights and unjust discrimination, surely you don’t support unfair discwimminashun do you??

    Lets rephrase your statement, shall we?:

    “Well no because marriage is by definition an institution to those in a heterosexual relationship, that is the qualifying criteria, how simple are you?”

    Like I said, you are hopelessly confused.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. slightlyright (93 comments) says:

    How is the Govt saying we wish to provide an incentive to those who are in work raising a family prohibited discrimination, there is nothing that prevents those who aren’t in work from getting it they simply need to gain employment to meet the qualifying criteria

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Pete George (22,863 comments) says:

    Are you against polygamy? What is the fundamental problem with it?

    Personally, yes. I think polygamy has mostly been used in situations of unequal ownership and power of one person over multiple people.

    For me marriage is a commitment to a one to one equal partnership. That would obviously be a fundamental problem with polygamy.

    And as far as democracy goes I haven’t heard a single person in New Zealand saying they want polygamy, so I’m against something for which there seems to be no support.

    Do you know of anyone who is proposing the legalising of polygamy here?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    PG,

    No he doesn’t. he’s just going to keep grinding at to you to justify why the removal of discrimination against same sex marriage shouldn’t also apply to polygamy. And when you give up on that he will claim that if you can’t justify that then there can be no justification for SSM.

    It is a semantic argument with no purpose than his own.

    Reality, on the other hand, is that the Bill only refers to same sex couples and therefore that is all that is required to be discussed – that polygamy has no relevance to the actual Bill to be debated. And supporters of it are under zero obligation to justify any elements which do not form part of the Bill as presented.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. frankflintstone (70 comments) says:

    I saw something on tv about a polygamist in australia a few years ago..not my thing but they all seemed cool about it. Can’t really see why you’d be against people marrying the people they love.

    I’ve seen plenty of unequal marriages between 2 people too

    My question to you was nothing about democracy at all..just to do with equality..letting people do what they want and it not hurting anyone

    Seriously, where is the harm in polygamy, taking aside all your personal prejudices? There’s more change of children coming from a polygamist marriage than a gay one so I’m sure that will keep some people with their ideas on what marriage is..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. frankflintstone (70 comments) says:

    sorry, didn’t see your last question..no I don’t know anyone proposing legalising polygamy over here

    I can’t see what problem I would have with it though

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Pete George (22,863 comments) says:

    letting people do what they want and it not hurting anyone

    They can do that now, there’s nothing stopping people from living together in a shared multiple relationship. They can’t have a multiple civil union, maybe you should campaign for that if it’s important to you. It’s not important to me and no one has proposed it that I know of so again, it’s a diversionary non-issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. frankflintstone (70 comments) says:

    bhudson

    no one is under any obligation to justify anything..I’d just like to know why people are so against polygamy when it doesn’t necessarily harm anyone

    I’ll answer any question you give me..why won’t you do me that courtesy?

    Its also a little premature to support something when you don’t know its contents

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. frankflintstone (70 comments) says:

    I don’t want to campaign for it..its not important to me at all. There’s nothing stopping 2 gay people living together and they can even have a civil union if they want..I right that is not afforded to people who want to polygamise ( or some such word)

    its not a diversionary non-issue – if I was to start spouting on about equality then I’d have to support that for all – not just the groups in society that I wish to support

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Pete George (22,863 comments) says:

    I don’t think I’m prejudiced, and I’m not “so against polygamy”, it’s purely hypothetical and irrelevant to the current bill.

    Its also a little premature to support something when you don’t know its contents

    That’s right, it’s not for me (neither is same sex marriage) but if it was ever proposed I’d have to look at the pros and cons before I decided if I’d support or oppose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. alloytoo (434 comments) says:

    @Andrei’s wife sounds like she’s a prize brood mare (at least in his estimate)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    if I was to start spouting on about equality then I’d have to support that for all – not just the groups in society that I wish to support

    No you wouldn’t frank. That is the point. You wouldn’t have to at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    eszett (1,513) Says:
    “An infertile couple cannot make babies (unless the use the same method as gay and lesbians)
An elderly couple cannot make babies. Does the state have no interest in their marriage? Should they not allowed to be married. Your wife must feel very lucky then that she was able to bear children, otherwise she would be just another business partner.”

    Haha, beautifully put eszett. If all that signifies a marriage is the ability to pro-create why bother getting married? Why not just do what a huge percentage of the population does now anyway; any old bloke can go round impregnating whomever they feel attracted to at the time, then just bugger off and leave the missus to raise their offspring. Then you can quickly repopulate the earth to balance out the tidal wave of retirees that are about to burden us all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. rolla_fxgt (311 comments) says:

    @ Scott

    Ha ha have to have a bit of a laugh there, no never been a church member, been a couple of times for christmas eve carols, and sunday school with a friend, when I was a kid, but its never been something thats appealed to me. To much irrationality.
    Which if I’m to be honnest is reinforced in this thread in some of the arguments against allowing gay people to marry. The world has moved on since the early 1900′s, let alone 2000 years ago. Things change, and religious people need to (and the majority do) adjust to it, rather than see the bible as a factual document, where its words is law.
    I don’t have anything against church goers per se, some of my good friends are very regular church goers, and nice people, but then they take people as they are, and don’t try to brainwash them, or judge them for their decisions.

    But back to Churches and their tax and rates free status.
    Yes all charities are tax free, but something like the foundation for the blind, as you mentioned, do work soley for the benefit of the blind, and those who are vision impaired. Something a large majority of the population would agree with. But where Churches differ, is that churches are really largely for the benefit of the members, and their charitable activities are secondary to their main purpose, which is a place of worship.
    Religion itself is no reason for a tax free status, being a charitable organisation doing charity work is. I accept that some churches do a good amount of charity work, but that could be dealt with by splitting the activities into the church activities (taxed income) and charitable activitie which would be tax free.
    Churches are really as I’ve said no different to any other sports or community group, such as a car club, a tramping club, scouts, or a choir.
    So why its still in the charities act that religion is a ground for being a charity, is beyond me, and many others. Its a hangover from times long ago, and nothing more than a tax loophole.
    Studies in Melboure have shown that if Churches paid rates there, that the council would be able to lower taxes for everyone by 10%. Imagine how much cheaper for all of us rates would be if churhes paid their fair share. I’m sure Aucklanders would love to have less rates than the new ones. Len might even be able to afford his train set if churches paid their fair share.
    While Studies in NZ have shown that churches have recieved over $500million in income a year in 2004. Even if we say half of that income is really totally or largely for charitable purposes then the govt is missing out on $80 million a year in tax. Imagine the outrage if any other sector of society was avoiding their responsibilities to the country to such an extent.

    Sanitarium is owned by the Seventh Day Adventists, and as such pays no company tax, or rates on any of its incomes or facilities. Thus it gains an advantage over other similar business.
    But Sanitarium is one of only many businesses that use the charitable relgious status to avoid their tax responsibilities. So untill this problem is fixed, I won’t listen to their opinions, as they in my eyes don’t earn the right to do so, untill they pay some tax.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. frankflintstone (70 comments) says:

    bhudson

    ok..I wouldn’t have to support equality for all..I’d just be a hypocrite

    I am a hypocrite..but not in this instance

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    Btw you narrow-minded Christian ranters…homosexuals weren’t born sinners, they were born with an attraction to their same gender. That’s all. If you believe God created everyone in his own image then He also created these human beings just the way they are. It’s part of their personality, their soul, their chemical wiring. Just as most hetrosexual folk aren’t attracted to the opposite gender, or many people aren’t attracted to those from another race or a different colour to them. That’s how you are wired. God or the universe or genetics made you that way and try as you might you can’t just switch it off. It’s not a lifestyle choice, it’s a pre-programmed personality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    oops- i meant most hetro people aren’t attracted to the SAME gender…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. frankflintstone (70 comments) says:

    peter george

    most people are prejudiced in some instances, its not a crime. Your first reaction about polygamy was to do with unequal power. that’s what a lot of people would say too, and so would I based on what I have generally seen..its still a prejudicial position to take on all polygamists

    Its all completely irrelevant to the current bill, but not to a discussion of equality.

    I can’t really see why someone would oppose polygamy based on the equality argument. I can with the anti gay marriage argument, but then with polygamy there usually is a lot of children product which seems to be one of their main arguments against gay marriage. Unless of course its 3 men getting married..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    Well frank, given that you support inequality in marriage today, it seems strange that marriage inequality [as you see it] in a slightly different form (a change for SSM only) is some how hypoocritical – it is simply a slightly different form of inequality [in your view] to the inequality we have today [which you support]

    Hmmm….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. frankflintstone (70 comments) says:

    openmind,

    that people are born gay is an idea..its nowhere near proven. please be open minded

    and no I’m not religious at all

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    Oh sorry frankflintstone, I forgot to include those of you from the stone age as well…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    Why does it have to be ‘proven’ anyway? Do you have to prove to society why you are hetrosexual or prove why you like beef but not chicken or blondes over brunettes?

    I know several people with gay children who come from a long ling of straight families who could tell (in hindsight or had an inkling all along) that their children would grow up to be gay right from when they were toddlers- from the toys they chose, games they played and play-roles they assumed, long before they even heard a Queen song….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. frankflintstone (70 comments) says:

    openmind

    WTF is that supposed to mean?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. frankflintstone (70 comments) says:

    who said it had to be proven? Not all behaviour or choices is genetic. I wasn’t judging anyone – just your open mindedness.

    I would rather shag a bloke than support a different football team and that isn’t genetic

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    No, of course not all behaviour is genetic, much of it is environmentally influenced. If something presents itself from an early age its fairly likely it’s not just a choice is it? Maybe some people choose to be have homosexual relationships after many years of having hetero ones (Alison Mau could be a topical example) but my point is we are all born with peculiar personalities, not just in a scientific DNA cells and molecules way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. frankflintstone (70 comments) says:

    hmm..all the people I went to school with who we thought were gay don’t appear to be now. I did lots of girl things when I was young and I’m not gay. If I had turned out gay I could look back at that stuff and go of course, but it didn’t turn out to be. Coincidences and anecdotes don’t stack up really.

    are any personality traits actually proven to be from birth? Obviously breathing is something that is born into us but other stuff that is not essential to our survival?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Scott (1,709 comments) says:

    rolla_fxgt (266) Says: August 29th, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    I appreciate your comments but for the life of me I cannot see the fairness of taxing churches just so that Len Brown can have even more money to spend on trains.
    Involved as I am on the finance side of our church I can speak with some authority on this matter. If you take a small church of say 100 members which has an annual income of maybe $100,000. That income is generally almost entirely from the voluntary donations of church members. Now why should that income be taxed? I am sorry but I am annoyed now so I am going to get a little bit snippy. The person who has put that money in the offering plate has already been taxed. Now you want it taxed again. What is wrong with you?

    From that $100,000 they might pay for the minister. The money he or she receives in stipend and whatever is taxed. So the government does get that tax there. It just seems unfair to me that you want to punish the little churches for some nameless fairness. Just leave the little organisations alone. Out of what is left they have to pay rates, power, telephone, the cost of running ministries, helping their neighbour, mowing the widow’s lawn etc. For many small churches paying a double tax, taxing income that has already been taxed, would put them out of business.

    And the costs of having to separate out charitable from noncharitable activities would be very high. We have a kids club. It has some worship activities but also lots of kids come from their community because it is fun. Presumably we would have to pay tax on that? We would get taxed for the $2.50 we charge for dinner?

    And if that is what is stopping you going to church then you need respectfully to have another think. Go to church, see the good that is being done. Maybe you might get some spiritual enlightenment. And leave the little communities alone. You want more money to go to big government. What is wrong with you? Who decided you should destroy community life?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Paul Williams (876 comments) says:

    How remarkable that Redbaiter asks Megan to apologise! Your initial comment regarding Megan’s earnest and thoughtful contribution was to entirely dismiss her as misguided. At some point you must entertain the possibility that rather than everyone else being entirely wrong, it’s simply you that disagrees. Many, though not necessarily those around here, would respect your right to hold a contrary view. Sadly, however it is you – the self proclaimed libertarian – who insists everyone who thinks differently from you is wrong. Hypocritcal much?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    Way to gloss over with some flippant stereotypes Frank. Why would doing ‘girl things’ when you were young make you gay?
    My anecdotes are just that, things that parents observed, I didn’t say that their son played with dolls when he was 3 and therefore he was obviously gay. You’ve taken a simplistic view of what I said. These are years of behavioural patterns and indicators for these parents. Obviously there are many people who are incredibly surprised when a member of their friends or family ‘comes out’, having no prior inkling.

    Yes, I absolutely believe we are born with certain character traits for better or worse. Frank, if you want to shag a bloke then that might be your lifestyle choice or maybe deep down you actually fancy men. Either way that’s fine, your choice. But to cast someone as a sinner for an innate desire to ‘bond with another human being’ is what I am opposed to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Redbaiter (7,640 comments) says:

    Slightlyright- “we as Young Nats are referring to EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW”

    What crap. You are trying to say of course that justice shoud be blind but can’t help yourself in repeating your facile Marxist concerns with your perception of “equality”.

    The Nats, young or senile, don’t believe in equality before the law, even if that could be considered as a reliable political stance, because they support different laws for Maori , Women and various other social groups within our communities.

    They support regulations that reinforce these concepts and demand quotas based on race and gender. More Marxist crap that the Nationals should in reality run a mile from if they had any idea of what their party initially stood for.

    The concept you are groping for you poor intellectually stunted half educated socialist lemming is “blind justice”, the lady with the blindfold and the scales who tries and dishes out penalties for wrongdoing that are all the same no matter what is the race or gender of the convicted wrong doer.

    I’d tell you to go back to school and get an education except that that process is really just a Marxist immersion experience and you’d only come out of it twice as fucked in your thinking as you are now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Redbaiter (7,640 comments) says:

    Paul Williams- “How remarkable that Redbaiter blah blah blah…”

    What a shame you haven’t anything to say on the issue Paul, I would have enjoyed exposing your petulant childlike self indulgent Progressive cant for the worthless crap it really is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Redbaiter (7,640 comments) says:

    What’s the bet the next “young Nat” is just another superficial Marxist robot parroting the same worthless progressive gibberish as this one?

    The Young Nats are a lost cause and proof that the National Party is in irreversible decline.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. thedavincimode (6,539 comments) says:

    Oh God. That doll got another puncture has it Russ?

    petulant childlike self indulgent

    LOL. You are a classic. Do you ever realise what you’re saying?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. frankflintstone (70 comments) says:

    you believe it doesn’t make it fact. I was asking for more proof than that.

    I meant if had turned out gay I could look at things I did when I was younger and see those as an early indication of gayness.

    I really don’t want to shag men and I’ve never cast someone as a sinner.

    I just think you’re getting a little confused with beliefs and facts – which I hear a lot from religious people too

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Redbaiter (7,640 comments) says:

    How’s your own George Clooney doll standing up to it all?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. thedavincimode (6,539 comments) says:

    Where did that come from?!! So you’ve got a thing about George Clooney eh? You old homo you. :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    you poor intellectually stunted half educated socialist lemming

    Looks like you may have skipped a few chapters when reading How to Win Friends and Influence People, Red

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    Frank, you’re absolutely right. I should have just started with…

    There is much evidence to suggest gay people are born that way. And then…
    There are many people, including myself, who believe that gay people are probably born that way. And then…
    I believe it’s very narrow minded to cast out members of our society as ‘sinners’ and not afford them the same rights as others because they want to have a consenting relationship with someone of the same gender. And then I should have said…
    If you weren’t born that way but later choose to be gay it still shouldn’t mean you can’t be afforded the same rights as hetero couples.

    And just as a hetero couple don’t have to prove the worth of their relationship when they want to marry (unless maybe in their strict church) why should a gay couple have to prove themselves either?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Andrei (2,506 comments) says:

    And just as a hetero couple don’t have to prove the worth of their relationship when they want to marry (unless maybe in their strict church) why should a gay couple have to prove themselves either?

    OpenMind

    Marriage is not about the “worth of your relationship” it is about the bond between a man and a woman, which is distinctly different between the relationships between any same sex combination.

    This should be obvious to a two year old.

    You don’t like that men and women are made differently and that this difference plays a fundamental role in the lifecycle of the human being?

    Take it up with God

    Or if you prefer Mother Nature – it is what it is

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. SGA (816 comments) says:

    @Andrei 5:43 Marriage is not about the “worth of your relationship”

    I genuinely believe that you believe that. From your posts here, it is clear that you see wives as nothing more than breeding stock.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. wat dabney (3,672 comments) says:

    Take it up with God

    What did Odin say on the subject of marriage?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. rolla_fxgt (311 comments) says:

    @ Scott

    Oh I don’t think Len should get any money for his trainset, its a pointless waste of money. I was just pointing out that the money from applying rates to churches could be used in other ways, such as lower rates for others, or providing services to ratepayers, or even on council projects.

    Again you’re back to your argument about income being taxed, so it shouldn’t be taxed when spent. Which is clearly a silly argument to make, as we do tax companies on their profits which they gain from people spending, and we tax that spending. So for you to complain about the fact I want churches to be the same, and get taxed on income (Dontations, Deposits, Bequeaths, Sales etc), is rather odd, unless you are arguing for no business tax, and no GST?
    Which of course would be open to abuse, as people would suddenly become businesses contracting to companies to avoid personal tax, not to mention that most of current government spending would need to be cut overnight, and society would soon cease to function well. And government wouldn’t be able to fund any social spending at all.
    So I have to conclude that you are arguing that just like marriage, its always been the way, so why change. Good question, why should we change? Well religion, especially christianity is practiced by such a small percentage of the population today that to maintain a special exemption from taxation now, would be silly. Put it this way, if churches were taxed, would they suggest they shouldn’t be, and would such a bill pass in the house? I don’t think so.

    As mentioned churches don’t pay rates, I’m not sure about water, but if its a seperate water charge, then I assume they have to pay for usage. So out of the numbers you use, lets take that out of the mix, its a red herring.
    Phone, and paying the minister, as well as power, yes they are the costs of running the organisation, no different to any other club around NZ. I guess there may be internet costs as well. The cost of running the ministry is no different, to say the cost of a car club running their club. So again no different to any other organisation. Unless you can offer a coherent argument as to why a church is a better organisation than any other community organisation. Which from reading between the lines is what you seem to think, that churches, and church members are superior to other organisations, and have some sort of greater community benefit than others.
    Yes churches have some non religous charity work, but so do other community organisations, such as 4wd clubs, who whenever there is a disaster, or heavy snowfall, come out into the communities and help out taking meals on wheels, taking emergency services around, or just checking on the venerable. They’re not tax free, why should churches? Car clubs too, they give an area for people to let loose with their cars, they also teach car control, making safer drivers. They pay tax, why shouldn’t churches. Many organisations provide charitable services, which like churches are secondary to their primary purpose, which is to exist to be of benefit to their members.

    Yes there may be some cost to churches seperating out their member benefit activities from their true charity work. But its hardly prohibitive, in fact I’m sure all it would cost, would be a few extra hours of accountants time come accounts filing time, and a little more care when allocating money against church, or charity accounts. Again other organisations do, why can’t churches?
    And if some churches were to fail given the need to pay tax, that would mean that the taxpayers were subsidising them. Of course, just like other clubs, churches could merge small congregations together, as some are doing now.

    Yes you should, like other organisations pay tax on meals, no different to rugby clubs, who do this, and provide a sense of community.

    Frankly that’s a little condesending to tell me I need to go to church to see the good being done. Doing good for the members isn’t the point. That’s not charity, that’s just benefiting members. True charity is work outside the church, things like providing food parcels, grants etc, and this should remain tax free. Its the other stuff that should be taxed.

    Other things provide me with a sense of community, the local schools, the mountian bike club, the car club, and other such things. I don’t believe in god, or need to believe in any other being to feel loved, or have spiritual enlitenment. I know I am loved by my friends and family, that is enough for me.
    I am not against communities, or small community orientated organisations. I am just against favouring one type of group over another.
    Neither am I for big government, as I have said. I am for lower taxes for all, which would do a huge amount of good for all in the community.
    Remember that 2004 figure of over $500 million in income of churches, that will undoubtedly be far larger now, and it excludes companies incomes, such as Sanitarium, and others that, for reasons of tax avoidance are owned by religious groups. That’s a lot of tax for the government, to give back to the community, rather than to enrich a religion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. wat dabney (3,672 comments) says:

    Marriage is ..about the bond between a man and a woman. You don’t like that men and women are made differently and that this difference plays a fundamental role in the lifecycle of the human being? Take it up with God

    “A resource for proving that Polygamy really IS Biblical”
    http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/

    So what have we learned about the Bible and marriage?

    1) Polygamy is acceptable
    2) Wives can be stoned to death if they are not virgins

    There might just be time to add these provisions to the current Parliamentary debate about what constitutes marriage. I know the “Christians” here will be keen to get them enacted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. wat dabney (3,672 comments) says:

    “Jesus never said a single word about anything even remotely connected to homosexuality”

    http://www.npr.org/2012/05/11/152466134/same-bible-different-verdict-on-gay-marriage

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    Andrei, not many things are ‘obvious’ to a two year old, we have to teach them. i.e it’s obvious not to poke scissors in the plughole, or it’s obvious you shouldn’t jump off the roof. So if society, or your family, neighbours, church or whoever has told you ‘it’s obvious’ only a man and a woman should be able to marry than that’s understandable you would believe that idea only. That’s how I was raised and how church and society has dictated for many centuries. That doesn’t mean it’s the only way forward for society now. We’ve moved on from many previous steadfast ideas as our societies have grown and mingled, with expanded travel, freedom of thought and speech and the easy accessibility via the internet etc of sharing ideas more freely.

    I love that men and women are different and I understand the biological need that in order to pro-create you require something from each one. That’s a beautiful part of evolution or creation or whatever one believes in. But obviously you don’t need marriage in order to pro-create. And you don’t need to pro-create just because you are in a marriage.

    I wouldn’t like to be the one to say ‘this lady who has twisted ovaries’ or ‘this paraplegic man’ for example can’t be afforded the right to marriage simply because they don’t have the ability to pro-create.

    How is it really going to hurt Adam and Eve if John and Barry decide to get hitched too?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Reid (15,970 comments) says:

    How is it really going to hurt Adam and Eve if John and Barry decide to get hitched too?

    OpenMind gays already have equality: it’s called Civil Union. That gives them every single right. No-one in the thousands of comments on this issue on this blog has managed to contradict that logic. Not one. Why don’t you have a go.

    On the assumption you can’t, (since no-one hasn’t yet) and accepting that is in fact the case:

    Why do you think this is a global movement and does that disturb you in that, possibly there are hidden agendas operating?

    Do you find it interesting this march today has a poster in it saying “we haven’t even started yet” and what do you think that might mean?

    When you boil it all down, all this fuss is about the ability of certain groups to use a certain word: “marriage.” Since when has a noun been grounds for discrimination and why do you think all this fuss has been generated, over the use of a collective noun?

    If you make a serious attempt to answer those questions, I’ll explain why it is really going to hurt society if John and Barry can call their relationship a marriage instead of a civil union.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. wat dabney (3,672 comments) says:

    gays already have equality: it’s called Civil Union

    So, not equality then.

    You know, it’s come to the point where we’d all be surprised if you didn’t wheel-out this feeble canard each and every day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Reid (15,970 comments) says:

    It’s a word wat. Why don’t you have a go at answering:

    When you boil it all down, all this fuss is about the ability of certain groups to use a certain word: “marriage.” Since when has a noun been grounds for discrimination and why do you think all this fuss has been generated, over the use of a collective noun?

    And remember, I’m the one defending the status quo. It’s you people who are advocating all this fuss is worthwhile, but it’s a WORD wat. How come you’re advocating all this fuss for a simple, single WORD? Why?

    Surely if you’re advocating change, it’s up to you to justify why. Or is it because you can’t, that you don’t? Which makes your whole position precarious, doesn’t it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    Reid, I have tried searching for an outline on a kiwi site, but can’t find anything right now…not sure if any or all of these American facts are relevant to NZ Civil Unions…. http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm…so I can’t say whether NZ civil unions afford them every single right as per marriage in regards to taxes, benefits, insurance, wills etc

    Homosexuals just want to be RECOGNISED AS EQUALS. Not just thrown a bone. It’s kindof like saying…hey you coloured people can now ride on the bus or eat in our restaurant, what else could you want? Oh, to sit beside us? Now hang on a minute….

    What is the hidden agenda that you think is behind this ‘global movement’? I’m genuinely curious. Do you think all the homos in the world are trying to recruit all our kids to being queer too? That they are actually anti-humanity and family? They are trying to be pro the family unit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. wat dabney (3,672 comments) says:

    It’s you people who are advocating all this fuss is worthwhile, but it’s a WORD wat. How come you’re advocating all this fuss for a simple, single WORD? Why?

    So, absolutely no objection to allowing gays to marry then.

    Glad we got that cleared up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Reid (15,970 comments) says:

    OpenMind, I can tell you the only legal right Civil Union doesn’t grant is the ability to be considered as candidate “parents” under the Adoption Act.

    In which case, we have a gay adoption debate, don’t we. Yes we do. So why don’t we have a gay adoption debate to solve this discrimination, instead of pretending there is imaginary discrimination, over the use of a collective noun?

    You’ll need to address the other questions before I tell you what’s the hidden agenda.

    So, absolutely no objection to allowing gays to marry then.

    No not at all wat, it’s called Civil Union. So can I take it you’re against gay marriage and in favour of the status quo? Certainly sounds like it. Well done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Andrei (2,506 comments) says:

    Reid – you are pissing into the wind.

    You are trying to reason with people who are as thick as planks, dunderheads.

    There is a train coming down the tracks and the girl who wrote this post is going to find the nice, comfortable, secure, world she grew up in is no more.

    Anyone with their eyes open can see what is coming down the pike and why. It is just a matter of how long the politicians can continue to shuffle the deck chairs on the Titanic before the inevitable crunch!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. wat dabney (3,672 comments) says:

    Hmm.

    You attempt to breezily dismiss the issue by denying any discrimination and claiming the whole thing is a trivial disagreement about a little word and yet, when we call your bluff and say that if it’s so completely insignificant you won’t mind if we go ahead a change it, you splutter and bluster like someone who…well. like someone who’s just had his bluff called.

    Now, do you have any substantive argument or was that it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. wat dabney (3,672 comments) says:

    Bit of a disagreement here.

    Reid claim that the whole thing is meaningless and that there is no discrimination (despite the rather obvious objection that we are discussing why straight people can marry and gay people can’t), whilst Andrei says that, to the contrary, it’s the end of the World and that Reid is “as thick as a plank” and a “dunderhead” for not realising.

    But still no rational objection.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Reid (15,970 comments) says:

    Reid – you are pissing into the wind.

    I know Andrei, I’m not bothering to try to change opinion, I gave that up long ago. I’ve switched to trying to understand the details of the mindset. My theory is this is a version of cognitive dissonance. There has to be an emotive component in it otherwise the proponents would have been swayed long ago by the simple obvious transparent logic you and I and certain others have been putting out for ages but no, not a twinkle. My interest is in understanding how it is this cognitive dissonance has taken hold in the proponents minds so ubiquitously and so vehemently. Perhaps they were all pre-disposed to this perspective, somehow, but the fact it’s crossed political boundaries so thoroughly is an interesting question but as for the debate itself, I think it was lost before it started, personally. I wonder if it ever got to referendum, how it would really have fared. Thanks to you BTW and to all others like Fletch et al, sorry if I don’t mention you but we all know who we are. They really are a total bunch of dunderheads, aren’t they.

    You attempt to breezily dismiss the issue by denying any discrimination

    wat, what about this haven’t you understood in the months of comments on this? There isn’t any discrimination, because it’s a word. What about that, don’t you get? How the fuck can anyone be discriminatory, if a certain group can behave in every way in society with all legal rights, but they don’t get to use a word? This is like saying Pakeha are discriminated against because they can’t call themselves Maori. What about that, don’t you get?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    You are trying to reason with people who are as thick as planks, dunderheads.

    Another one of those countless statements pregnant with irony by Andrei.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Redbaiter (7,640 comments) says:

    Reid- “My interest is in understanding how it is this cognitive dissonance has taken hold in the proponents minds so ubiquitously and so vehemently. ”

    Education failure. Very few of them can think for themselves.

    As I said in my comment at 10:32-

    http://www.popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=2729

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. wat dabney (3,672 comments) says:

    wat, what about this haven’t you understood in the months of comments on this? There isn’t any discrimination, because it’s a word. What about that, don’t you get?

    I guess it’s the bit where straight people are allowed to marry and gay people can’t.

    You know, the very topic of discussion.

    This is like saying Pakeha are discriminated against because they can’t call themselves Maori. What about that, don’t you get?

    The thing I don’t get is the completely false analogy.

    If Pakeha were allowed by the state to marry and Maori weren’t then you’d have a useful analogy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Redbaiter (7,640 comments) says:

    A quote from the above link-

    We need new elite institutions that are once again deeply committed to the ethos ethos of freedom of thought and expression illustrated by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty:

    He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.

    We need universities where the entire faculty passionately supports the open airing of ideas with which they disagree. Ridicule, questioning of motives, or accusations of “racism,” “sexism,” etc. should never be acceptable behavior in conversations dedicated to the search for the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. frankflintstone (70 comments) says:

    openmind

    cool. you’ve backed down from that “homosexuals weren’t born sinners, they were born with an attraction to their same gender” nonsense

    that’s all I wanted

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Redbaiter (7,640 comments) says:

    “I guess it’s the bit where straight people are allowed to marry and gay people can’t.”

    A lie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Viking2 (11,146 comments) says:

    Must have been a very depressive, unproductive day for many today judging by the screeds of prose above.

    Go find something useful to do. earn a living pax some tax, anything anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    No-one in the thousands of comments on this issue on this blog has managed to contradict that logic. Not one. Why don’t you have a go.

    Reid – nonsense. From yesterday’s thread:

    [Reid]For what is the “discwimination?” I’ve asked and asked and asked all through this Kiwiblog debate and NOT ONCE has anyone ever been able to tell me. Not once.

    Absolute nonsense. You have been told – you merely don’t like it, so either ignore or duck and weave with semantics to try to denounce the (obvious) discrimination.

    Gay couples are denied the legal status of marriage for their State-sanctioned unions. This has, or has had, impacts in several areas. One, now resolved through a specifical amendment to an Act, is relationship property rights that, but for the amendment which had to be specifically drafted – it was not an inherent right – would have disadvantaged gay couples in what is considered for married couples to be shared property.

    Another is adoption. Which you would rather address through yet another specifically drafted amendment. (If at all. I actually suspect you would oppose gay adoption also.)

    Irrespective of either of those, or of any other Acts, the discrimination remains that gays’ State-sanctioned unions are not granted the status of marriage that heterosexuals are permitted. For as long as that difference remains, gay couples are discriminated against vis-a-vis heterosexual couples. It is real to them even though you refuse to acknowledge their right to be treated equally.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. wat dabney (3,672 comments) says:

    a lie

    Redbaiter after General Melchett: “If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    “I guess it’s the bit where straight people are allowed to marry and gay people can’t.”

    A lie.

    Yes, Red, it is indeed a lie that gay people can marry. But that is only for the moment…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Redbaiter (7,640 comments) says:

    Homosexuals have the same legal “rights” to marry as heterosexuals.

    To say they do not is a lie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Redbaiter (7,640 comments) says:

    Wat- in your own words, what is the origin of the star system Sirius?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    Red,

    Homosexuals do not have the right to marry [each other]. They only have the right to marry heterosexuals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. wat dabney (3,672 comments) says:

    Oh you with your clever wordplay, Redbaiter

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    Hey frankie…i haven’t backed down on my sentiment darlin, I just revised my presentation so you wouldn’t get your pedantic panties all in a bunch : )

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    “Homosexuals have the same legal “rights” to marry as heterosexuals. To say they do not is a lie”.
    Except for the adoption one then?

    Maybe it’s not all just about legalities…maybe it’s about equal status in society.
    Personally, I’d rather have a nice married gay couple raising the unwanted offspring of some loser hetero male and his halfwit irresponsible breeding partner any day.

    Alas, I must away now and do some more work so I can pay some more taxes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. big bruv (13,316 comments) says:

    Well folks, the fight is almost over. The first reading of Wall’s great bill has just started.

    The religious bigots will just have to get over themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Reid (15,970 comments) says:

    Absolute nonsense. You have been told – you merely don’t like it, so either ignore or duck and weave with semantics to try to denounce the (obvious) discrimination.

    bhudson I didn’t think you had a valid point.

    Gay couples are denied the legal status of marriage for their State-sanctioned unions. This has, or has had, impacts in several areas. One, now resolved through a specifical amendment to an Act, is relationship property rights that, but for the amendment which had to be specifically drafted – it was not an inherent right – would have disadvantaged gay couples in what is considered for married couples to be shared property.

    Another is adoption. Which you would rather address through yet another specifically drafted amendment. (If at all. I actually suspect you would oppose gay adoption also.)

    Irrespective of either of those, or of any other Acts, the discrimination remains that gays’ State-sanctioned unions are not granted the status of marriage that heterosexuals are permitted. For as long as that difference remains, gay couples are discriminated against vis-a-vis heterosexual couples. It is real to them even though you refuse to acknowledge their right to be treated equally.

    bhudson, you pointed to the need to amend the act. It was done.

    One, now resolved through a specifical amendment to an Act, is relationship property rights that, but for the amendment which had to be specifically drafted – it was not an inherent right – would have disadvantaged gay couples in what is considered for married couples to be shared property.

    Fact is, it’s resolved, isn’t it. If it isn’t an “inherent right” then WTF does that mean? Do you mean like the US Declaration of Independence? If so, we don’t have that, so gays STILL haven’t lost anything, have they.

    Like I said, if there is something else, like gay adoption, why can’t we have a debate about gay adoption? Isn’t that the logical outcome of that particular problem? How about answering that bhudson?

    For as long as that difference remains, gay couples are discriminated against vis-a-vis heterosexual couples.

    Yes but WHY is it real to them? They may think it is. Does that automatically make it so?

    Alas, I must away now and do some more work so I can pay some more taxes.

    Too bad you didn’t attempt answering my questions OpenMind, but not unexpected.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    Yes but WHY is it real to them? They may think it is. Does that automatically make it so?

    Yes [given they are the ones subject to the discrimination]K

    If it isn’t an “inherent right” then WTF does that mean?

    It means their inclusion within the property rights had to be defined separately. It was not inherent to them being married (because their union is prevented from holding that status)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    How about answering that bhudson?

    That will be addressed through an amendment Reid. An amendment to the Marriage Act.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Reid (15,970 comments) says:

    Yes [given they are the ones subject to the discrimination]K

    So I’m subject to discrimination bhudson, because no-one is willing to give me a million dollars.

    According to your logic, I should therefore be allowed to lobby for and have passed a law which says whoever I say so has to give me a million dollars. Oh, right. Yes, I’m discriminated against, because anyone I want to ask, refuses to give me a million dollars. There. I know this is not how it works in the real world bhudson but this is an exact analogy to how you think gay marriage should work. An exact analogy.

    It means their inclusion within the property rights had to be defined separately. It was not inherent to them being married (because their union is prevented from holding that status)

    Yes and as I explained last weekend bhudson this is common-or-garden law, nothing special, happens all the time, for all sorts of reasons. Still no discrimination.

    That will be addressed through an amendment Reid. An amendment to the Marriage Act.

    Yes I know that bhudson. Question is: why and how is it justified, which you still haven’t been able to address.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. boredboy (250 comments) says:

    78-40. How do you like that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    It just passed with 78 – 40.
    Well done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Reid (15,970 comments) says:

    Congratulations useful idiots.

    You’ve just poisoned the family unit.

    Proud of yourselves?

    Of course you are.

    They don’t call you idiots for nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. boredboy (250 comments) says:

    Hahaha. Reid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. kowtow (7,645 comments) says:

    Sean Hayes spoke well, MacIndo too.

    Wall un necessesary and undignified poke at the church in conclusion,oh well the agenda progresses unrelentingly with lots of help from Notional members. Shame on them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    I know this is not how it works in the real world bhudson but this is an exact analogy to how you think gay marriage should work. An exact analogy

    But it is not, Reid. Not even close.

    Now, if most others were being given a $1m and you were not for some specious reason (because, for instance, you are called Reid, or because you are Anglican, or because you are a man) then you could claim discrimination and you could claim that was at least somewhat analogous to the discrimination (as a thing felt by you) which exists with same sex unions and marriage.

    But of course that is not the case Reid. You have tried to claim an analogy using a semantic argument which does stand up to scrutiny.

    However, there is another reason why your claimed analogy does not undermine the position vis-a-vis discrimination in same sex unions.

    With the proposal for redefining marriage to include same sex unions, people have lobbied for that position, have had a Private Member’s Bill lodged, then drawn, and now voted into Select Committee. It remains to be seen, but the majority indicates a strong chance that it will be ultimately passed. If you can achieve that Reid for your ’cause’ then you too could have your ‘discrimination’ removed through Act of Parliament.

    Good luck with that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    kowtow,

    That is “John Hayes”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,563 comments) says:

    Almost 200 comments as I projected! All my tick boxes have been ticked, thanks for coming!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. boredboy (250 comments) says:

    No probs. Goodnight everyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Scott (1,709 comments) says:

    rolla_fxgt (267) Says: at 5:57 pm

    Thank you rolla for your considered response. I apologise for getting a bit snippy. Having had a good sleep, I hopefully will represent Christianity a little better today :)

    You probably need someone with more knowledge of tax on me to debate this issue properly. I think what you are getting at is that the church should pay tax on any profit? If that is so, remember that the church is not a business. There are no goods or services sold for a fee. The income received is voluntary donations from church members. It is not like a business where there is a dividend payout to shareholders. This does not happen in a church. Also if the church pays tax on any surplus at the end of the year for example, then presumably they should be able to claim back for any loss? I am just not sure that there is sufficient income and surplus with the average church to justify changing its tax regime?

    You may be referring to the removal of the charitable donation aspect of church giving? That is a factor with people giving that they can claim back a portion of their donation as a tax refund. However my experience is that people will give anyway. So I don’t suspect that will particularly affect church giving.

    Regarding rates it has been on an unpleasant surprise to us that our local council is charging us rates. We thought like you that we were exempt, but our council thinks otherwise.

    Regarding other organisations I do respect the little platoon, the small organisations such as car clubs and four-wheel-drive clubs, that volunteer as you mention to help out in emergencies. Good on them. I would like there to be a much more lenient tax regime to encourage the little organisations which are important in community life.

    To give you an example of how unforgiving the IRD can be – a few years ago at the particular church I am part of our finances were not good. We didn’t have enough money to pay the PAYE on the minister’s stipend. We immediately got correspondence from the IRD about penalties that would be incurred straight away. And the vastly increased penalties that would be incurred at regular intervals. So I am of the view that the IRD gets its fair share.

    However we may just have to agree to disagree on this issue. However I do wish you well on your spiritual journey and encourage you to consider life in the spirit. There is still time.

    In Christ, Scott

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    Scott,

    I agree with you regarding tax-exempt status for churches. (In a sense, I’m in favour of a form of tax exemption for everyone.) But it’s hard for me to reconcile that view with the Tamakis and de Jongs of this world – the size of their churches, the extent of their personal holdings as a result of the voluntary giving of people who feel in some way reliant on them for spiritual guidance and perhaps even eternal salvation.

    The degree of control that religious leaders have over their congregations’ priorities can be immense, and when giving to the church is a potential priority, there’s so much potential for abuse (and evidence to suggest it’s not just potential).

    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.