Collins voting yes on same sex marriage
August 21st, 2012 at 8:41 am by David FarrarGaynz.com reports:
[S]peaking briefly to GayNZ.com Daily News yesterday afternoon as she left Auckland’s Aotea Centre after helping open a Human Rights Commission conference encouraging diversity and ‘a fair go for all,’ Collins said of marriage equality: “I’ve got no problem with it.”
On enabling same-sex couples to legally adopt children she responded: “I’ve got no particular problem with that either.”
It’s great Judith is supporting allowing same sex couples to marry, if they want to.
It is likely the first reading on the bill will be Wednesday 29 August. However unclear if it will complete the two hour debate that night.
People may be surprised at how certain MPs vote.
Related posts:
- PM says gay marriage doesn’t affect his marriage to Bronagh
- Dom Post on same sex marriage
- Poll breakdown on same sex marriage
- More on Marriage
August 21st, 2012 at 9:07 am
I had heard her nuts had fallen off…
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 9:19 am
I will not be voting National next election, at least several Labour MPs have the guts to go against the “gaggle of gays and trade unionists”.
What the hell is the point of the National party?
National will loose the next election Farrar, aided and abetted by wishy washy issues like this and the liberal Wellington elite.
Get your priorities right, it is unbelievable how important this issue is to you, you are loosing respect of your readership and you can’t even see it.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 9:22 am
That is a suprise at least from my perspective. Good on her.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 9:28 am
Since it is a logical absurdity for two men to marry each other or for two women to do the same what she is supporting is for them to pretend they are married and the redefinition of word by government diktat to accommodate this fantasy.
Why not a private members bill to rename sewing machines to be screw cutting lathes would make as much sense?
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 9:28 am
@ Shunda – it’s a conscience issue for National and Labour MP’s; some are for it, and others are against. Not so the Greens and NZ First, who will bloc-vote for and against Louisa Wall’s Bill respectively.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 9:41 am
@ Shunda – it’s a conscience issue for National and Labour MP’s; some are for it, and others are against. Not so the Greens and NZ First, who will bloc-vote for and against Louisa Wall’s Bill respectively.
So what? the Prime minister is going all pc on it and you know damned well that it is National that will pass this or not.
If they pass this bill, I will not vote for the National party again, it is as simple as that, the Section59 debacle and John Keys blatant lies on that issue are one thing, but this pandering to the liberal elite on such an insignificant, pointless and ridiculous issue is just too bloody reminiscent of Helen Clark for me to stomach.
Helen Key can retire at the next election as far as I am concerned, David bloody Shearer seems like more of a conservative quite frankly, hell, even Chris Trotter hates him.
Tell me this, what will happen to gay couples if they don’t win this? answer, absolutely bloody nothing, they will continue to enjoy legal equality under the civil union legislation, oh how terrible.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 9:45 am
Have NZ First made that clear? It’s been assumed by some that their stance would be to bloc-vote to abstain.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 9:58 am
“but this pandering to the liberal elite on such an insignificant, pointless and ridiculous issue”
Shunda
If it was so insignificant, pointless and ridiculous why oppose it?
It isn’t and shows how shallow and sick thinking is towards society per se, depending on your perspective of course
edit – if it isn’t passed homosexuals won’t have the same rights as hets to adopt children, which is as it should be, especially the men.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 9:58 am
Judith Collins doesn’t appear to think so. Nor quite a few other people by the looks of things.
Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t get one.
Poor widdle fundamentalists, the world’s changing and not a lot of people listen to you any more…
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 10:00 am
It’s a member’s bill. Member’s bills don’t get two-hour first reading debates. They get 65 minute first reading debates.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 10:07 am
I have spoken to three long-tern Nats this week’ all said they would not vote National in 2014 due to the wimp-out on same-sex marriage. Expect a big vote shift in the provinces and rural seats, I guess to other parties like NZF and Conservative.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 10:12 am
In general –
Bishops damn gay marriage in letter
– http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/7513602/Bishops-damn-gay-marriage-in-letter
This item appeared on stuff.co four hours ago and doesn’t appear now unless one looks for it.
The letter to “Kiwis of Generation Y” from all six of New Zealand’s Catholic bishops advises against allowing same-sex couples to marry in the eyes of the law for the sake of “society as a whole”.
The letter is here – http://www.chch.catholic.org.nz/?sid=3294
More specifically –
Vote:Collins – “I’ve got no problem with it.” nor same sex couples adopting
John Banks yesterday was cited as believing Genesis literally, so guess he may be a “No” on gay marriage.
But will either represent the views, however they gauge them, of the voters they stand for?
Or is a conscience vote just the unsupported opinions of 120 people?
And how ‘unscientific’ and inconsequential as a representive poll sample is that?
August 21st, 2012 at 10:15 am
Sofia
as unrepresented as the 112 who voted for antismacking and criminalising Nz Parents.
that’s the calibre of people we have in the Beehive.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 10:17 am
No it isn’t. Perhaps you are not familiar with the concept of semantic change. It is the change in meaning ascribed to words over time. It is an etymological fallacy to hold that the present meaning of a word must necessarily be its historical meaning. The word “gay” is a good example.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 10:18 am
Collins is just the latest liberal who feels that every nook and cranny of diversity among people needs to be extracted, examined, serviced and have its feet kissed. I did believe that she knew better. Depressing.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 10:20 am
Yes, recognising someone’s equal standing with everyone else is “kissing their feet”.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 10:22 am
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh …
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 10:22 am
Hasty generalization. An anecdote involving three friends is hardly a sample worth basing your broad conclusions on. Yesterdays polls don’t seem to show a “big vote shift” in response to the gay marriage issue.
Also, it’s easy to criticize your preferred party so far out from election but when it looks like the other guys will win…
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 10:24 am
Haha. Enjoy it guys. Now you know what it’s like to be marginalised.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 10:29 am
Fuck it. I can’t stand this any more. I’ve changed my mind. I say we re-criminalise homosexuality and talk about something else.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 10:41 am
Yeah, but we argued about this yesterday. I don’t believe that change has happened yet, and this bill is using the law to force it to happen. The law should follow society’s lead, not the other way around.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 10:44 am
I have been considering that – whether we could have a word swap with the LGBT community and exchange “marriage” for “gay”.
I’d so like to be able to recover some of the great stories and tunes from the past – like the theme to The Flintstones!
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 10:45 am
I’m opposed to so-called gay marriage because I’m a conservative – and don’t buy into the sophistry that so fundamentally changing the underpinnings of such an ancient practice is somehow conservative. As Chesterton said: ““Any time you pull down a fence, always ask why it was put there in the first place.”
Still, the numbers of people involved are tiny. We have certainly done more damaging things to marriage than this and, while doubling down on our errors is not a good thing in of itself, perspective does temper things.
Most of all, I confess that I will be somewhat relieved when the law is passed. Hopefully then we will be spared the obsession with homosexuality of the left and the well-fed right.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 10:58 am
Shunda.
9.19 am.
Right on brother – with you all the way.
The Conservative party are looking pretty good right now, and stronger by the month. At least they are prepared to uphold proper conservative values and have the balls not to back down because of minority pressure groups or PC public opinion.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 11:01 am
The law IS following societies lead. Liberals are part of society it may surprise you to know. Indeed they are probably a much larger proportion of the population than fundamentalist conservatives that patrol online blogs.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 11:02 am
Have the Nats made any efforts to canvass their supporters and voters on this issue?
I have seen/heard nothing – and it gives the impression that National MPs don’t care what those that voted for them last election think. If National do take their supporters votes for granted, then I think iMP (10:07am) may well be proven right – previously National voters will be voting alright…with their feet.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 11:05 am
Cato,
It has been asked… and asked… and asked… eventually people get tired of vague references to the pending apocalypse and the downfall of civilization as we know it… especially young people who do not necessarily possess the prejudices of their forebears.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 11:07 am
Tom,
Fred and Barney were pretty close friends and were both members of a mens-only club… a gay old time indeed!
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 11:07 am
“Fundamentalist conservatives” eh Weihana?
You are typical of the progressive left – anyone who disagrees with you, you use the in vogue derogatory language to attempt to discredit them.
I think I’ll start calling you an “Alinskyite” after all your posts.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 11:17 am
Don the Kiwi, Andrei, redbaiter, et all, all reduced to Argumentum ad Labelum.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 11:19 am
Don,
Okay with me. My community organizing skills are pretty terrible, but I’ll accept the accolade.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 11:20 am
Weihana,
It is a fundamental tenet of conservatism that state intervention – in society as in the economy – produces unforseen consequences. The trouble with unforseen consequences is that they are by definition unforseeable. So – unless there is a compelling and immediate reason to tear down some long standing convention – and I wouldn’t classify the desires of our incestuous political-blogosphere-media caste as compelling – it would not be prudent to tear down such a universal convention on the basis of mere abstractions about conforming to the fashion of the age.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 11:22 am
I’m not a conservative, and if I’m a fundamentalist, I’m an Atheist one…
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 11:31 am
Cato (78) Says:
August 21st, 2012 at 10:45 am
It won’t stop until they have subjugated their opponents.
So that means coming after them in the universities they study in and their employment and businesses, in the media and socially until they daren’t open their mouths against a normal acceptable behaviour in law and society.
Dream on.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 11:32 am
Cato,
Prudent reasons have been given. The consequences are not unforeseeable they are easily judged. Indeed, gay marriage is already effectively a reality. The passing of gay marriage will be a symbolic victory more than anything else.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 11:35 am
Be that as it may, the social conservatives still do not appear a majority. If they were I would expect a little more results from the likes of Colin Craig.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 11:35 am
Cato (78) Says:
August 21st, 2012 at 11:20 am
It may be a tenet but John Key and national aren’t conservative anymore.
John Key knew full well the grief that would befall ordinary parents over the anti smacking law.
He and the other 111 Mp’s understood the trauma that would happen to them and their kids in the hands of the NZPolice and CYPS.
That the media cover it up is just disgusting.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 11:36 am
I won’t vote for Nathan GUY if he supports the bill (and I have always voted for him. I will still vote National but only because I rate John KEY as an outstanding Prime Minister and see no alternative leader.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 11:37 am
Don The Kiwi,
They can’t even muster 5% and you talk of minority pressure groups? O the irony.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 11:40 am
Weihana,
Exactly. The only aims of gay marriage are abstract, i.e. self-congratulation. No concrete rights will accrue to gay couples but the once fundamental idea that marriage is oriented towards the regulation of mating – a vitally important component of society – will be further undermined (even if it has been more greatly undermined by, say, easy divorce).
As the (secular) writer Heather Mac Donald noted: “The facile libertarian argument that gay marriage is a trivial matter that affects only the parties involved is astoundingly blind to the complexity of human institutions and to the web of sometimes imperceptible meanings and practices that compose them … Anyone with the slightest appreciation for the Burkean understanding of tradition will feel the disquieting burden of his ignorance in this massive act of social reengineering, even if he ultimately decides that the benefits to gays from gay marriage outweigh the risks of the unknown.”
Unfortunately, the centre-right is this country dominated by politics, rather than philosophy. We have Kiwiblog – a pro-National website and Whale Oil – an anti-Labour site. Rather than ideology, it seems that all that is ever analysed is tactics.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 11:43 am
This may be a clever ploy by National to insure they have coalition partners. I bet at Matthew Hooton predicts they will drop the threshold to 4% and we will see the Conservative Party and NZF in Parliament in 2014.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 11:45 am
The writing is on the wall, you foolish fellow, the fact that we are even considering homosexual “marriage” is a symption of our sad decline.
Here is the joker in the pack, if you will, about the time New Zealand becomes smokefree according to the agenda of our political masters, for each person of an age to receive superannuation there will be 2½ people of working age to pay that superannuation and for the healthcare that those people will no doubt feel they are entitled to.
To exacerbate matters, our young, those who have useful and marketable skills, are not staying here to help bolster the declining population, which is in ever increasing numbers being produced not by the urban middle classes, who produce the doctors, nurses and engineers we need but by the underclasses whose offspring make up those who prey upon our civil society.
My friend me and my siblings were bought up to raise children and we did. And we educated them and they have all except for the youngest departed this country for greener pastures and will not be coming back except perhaps for holidays and hence will not be paying for your super, healthcare and most certainly will not be the ones cleaning your stinking bedsores as you lie your bed in a squalid rest home.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 11:50 am
As for Colin Craig and the Conservative Party, they are completely misnamed. Aside from their defensible stance on social issues (though they defend them so poorly), they have always struck me as completely un-Conservative on the economic matters. It is an easy trap to fall into to think that you can have a powerful state and preserve social cohesion because a powerful state never has the discipline to resist interferring in social issues.
But in the last election, I saw none of that kind of analytical rigour from the so-Conservative Party – just as you never see the reverse from DPF.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 11:52 am
Okay, confess. Which one of you sent this letter to Jan Logie?
https://www.facebook.com/jan.logie/posts/10151950637110411
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Fret not Ryan Sproull, that was written by a homosexual activist – the propagation of those sort of missives is one of the oldest tricks in the Saul Alinsky playbook.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 12:07 pm
Yes, andrei, of course it was.
And it was Democrat doctors who told Todd Akin that raped women cannot become pregnant,
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 12:08 pm
The most significant battles have indeed already been won in the face of the same facile bullshit that you offer in this instance.
All you have is a vague reference to the unknown. On that basis no action may ever be taken. It’s an appeal to emotion, to fear in particular, which may resonate amongst the mystics and the unintelligent, but it is not enough on which to make an argument.
I have no problem with tradition and valuing that which has withstood the test of time for identifiable reasons. But when all that is offered is tradition for tradition’s sake then it becomes increasingly obvious that the hold-outs haven’t a leg to stand on.
Gay marriage may be largely symbolic but it is nevertheless important because it validates and endorses all the other accomplishments that have been obtained to date. Accomplishments which have not led to the downfall of civilization or the undermining of social organization, rather it has elevated us above the mystics and tyrants that populate the backwaters of this planet, most notably in places like the middle-east.
I suggest social conservatives in New Zealand that cling to antiquated traditions and social customs move over there posthaste. They’ll have a gay old time I’m sure.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Yes, after reading Alinsky I became more or less convinced that you were a homosexual activist yourself
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Luke,
Maybe not, but it’s well known that Democrats supported him, as the most idiotic candidate, in the GOP primary.
http://www.salon.com/2012/08/20/claire_mccaskills_smart_push_for_todd_akin/
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Unsustainable super is the fault of homosexuals? You heard it here first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi#Red_herring
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 12:23 pm
Weihana,
It’s an appeal to tradition – which is itself an appeal to the fact that society isn’t a machine, but an incomprehensibly complex and evolved organism. As F A Hayek said, making the clear link between economic freedom and social conservatism: “The most dangerous stage in the growth of civilisation may be that in which man has come to regard all [traditional customs] as superstitions and refuses to accept or to submit to anything which he does not rationally understand.”
Rationally considered, the only person who’s appealing to emotion is you – after all, you yourself acknowledge that the legislation would have symbolic value only. It’s you who is reacting in such a shrill and hyperbolic manner by suggesting I move to the middle East. On that subject, however, I don’t think I would need to move to the middle East – maybe just any Western European city. We are already seeing the emergence of a virulent form of social conservatism there, as the contradictions of modern liberalism grind up against each other. The problem is that I find that just as distasteful as our present decadence.
And while you’re beating up the straw men I just want to note that I did say that I didn’t think that gay marriage measurable add to the decline of the West per se. I do think that the issue, however (which is consuming so much oxygen at a time when economic and demographic pressures are pressing very hard on us) is symptomatic of the broader causes of our decline.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 1:25 pm
It’s great Judith is supporting allowing same sex couples to marry, if they want to.
I think it’s great too, especially since it’s already legal.
What I’m not happy with is her intention to have the government redefine marriage by certifying those relationships.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 1:27 pm
If one does not rationally understand it then it cannot be rational to submit to it. I do not accept submitting to tradition simply because it is tradition. If it is tradition then it warrants careful consideration but not blind submission. If it cannot be rationally understood after thorough analysis then it should be rejected. Tradition is merely the red flag that demands attention. It does not constitute a sound basis for conclusion following careful consideration. If after such consideration all you are left with is “but it’s tradition!” then you have clearly lost the argument.
Mostly symbolic, it would also equalize adoption rights.
However, an appeal to emotion is where a person bases the correctness of their argument on emotion. Gay marriage is correct or right not because it is a symbolic victory, it is the right thing to do because it treats different classes of people equally under the law. The fact that it is referred to as symbolic is merely a reflection of the practical significance of this type of discrimination.
Social conservatives always talk about a “decline” but I don’t see it. Economic downturns, recessions, depressions are inevitable. Market fluctuations follow a power law and no matter what we do we will not avoid further recessions and depressions in the future. But looking at the long term trends of our civilization we look in pretty good shape. We are more wealthy than at any time in history. Our technology is so far more advanced than previous generations that some of the things that we can do would be considered god-like by the standards of our ancestors. In recent times the portion size of food servings has doubled despite our increasing populations. Most people in the 1st world suffer so little real problems that we go out to find trivial problems to address such as the wearing of pajamas to the supermarket.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 2:10 pm
Weihana,
What you fail to grasp is that it is reasonable to recognise the limits of rationalism – and it is so reasonable because it is obvious that individual human minds are limited. To quote Hayek once more: “The rationalist whose reason is not sufficient to teach him those limitations of the powers of conscious rason, and who despises all the institutions and custms which have not been consciously designed would thus become the destroyer of civilisation built upon them.”
Now, contrary to your shrill ad hominem, Hayek was not a fire breathing evangelical Christian, but his thinking did explain an appreciation of tradition that most cultures (other than the post baby boomer West) still possess.
Put it this way, in the Soviet Union, the state set about roughly 24 million different prices – which doomed them to shortages. As Thomas Sowell noted: “Nobody is capable of setting and changing 24 million prices in a way that will direct resources and output in an efficient manner. For that, each of the 24 million prices would have to be weighed and set against each of the other 24 million prices. in order to provide incentives for resources to go where they were most in demand by producers and output to go where it was most in demand by consumers.”
Under a market economy, however, prices are set spontaneously and efficiently by millions of transactions. We know that the price of a packet of biscuits is an efficient price – even if no individual can rationally articulate the reason. Now, if we consider how this works in application to social matters, we would recognise that tradition – especially universal traditions like the conjugal marriage norm – represent the same sort of catallaxy as prices in a market. It’s not irrational to recognise that.
Your chief error, and the error of many, is to abuse reason by not seeing it for what it is. Reason is a tool – not an end unto itself.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Indeed, Hayek was strongly in favour of people’s freedom to experiment with new social arrangements and the like.
Let’s see…
“Our faith in freedom does not rest on the foreseeable results in particular circumstances, but on the belief that it will, on balance, release more forces for the good than for the bad … Freedom granted only when it is known beforehand that its effects will be beneficial is not freedom.”
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 2:39 pm
Right, which is why adultery and sodomy laws are probably not very good ideas. Which is not the same thing as statute (as positive law) intervening to pull down an evolved norm like pan-historical, pan-cultural and pre-state definition of marriage as being a conjugal relationship oriented towards procreation.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 3:28 pm
evolved norm like pan-historical, pan-cultural and pre-state definition of marriage as being a conjugal relationship oriented towards procreation.
universal traditions like the conjugal marriage norm
lol, that s just pseudo-intellectual gobbledegook nonsense that you make up as you go.
Marriage was quite different in various cultures. Even in the same culture the meaning varied with the times.
Some cultures have one man multiple women. Marriage often involved property, chattel and dowry. In some parts it still does.
This nonsense that there is a “universal norm” or “objective definition of marriage” is such complete and utter bullshit. Even you say it “evolved” . No reason why it shouldn’t keep evolving.
It’s a human construct, subject to change. Marriage today has a different meaning than what it had 50 years ago, 100 years ago and a thousand years ago.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 4:22 pm
But marriage is not and has not been between man and man or woman and woman. It is an institution that has been since the beginning of time between a man and a woman. I appreciate polygamy has been involved but still that is between man and woman, not man and man.
But again if we grant your argument that it is all so fluid there is no “rightness” in allowing gays to marry. It is just the wishes and preferences of urban secular liberals. Surely?? There is no right and wrong in your universe. Really it is just the liberals having their own way,again.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 5:42 pm
Looks like it soon will be between a man & a man, or a woman & a woman Scott.
Are you looking forward to your compulsory anal sex? Started practising yet?
Vote:They do say practise makes perfect
August 21st, 2012 at 5:45 pm
You are describing ONE single attribute of marriage. This is NOT an overriding attribute. There is no reason to define it this way and not include say a man and man or a woman and a woman.
“Rightness”? Is there “rightness” in a marriage between a man and a woman? How so?
Marriage is a social construct. Attributes like wrong or right are not absolutes, especially not in this context.
No, it’s the agreement of the whole of society. Granted you will not please everyone, but society (as a whole) has always defined what marriage is. It is a red herring that this is an “urban liberal issue”. It is not. Support is from all sides of the spectrum. If anything it is a generational issue.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 6:33 pm
I agree the human mind is limited, however there is no alternative upon which knowledge can be acquired or decisions made. If a person is to act they must use their mind to decide the right course of action. A person who appreciates the value of tradition and custom has that appreciation by virtue of the same limited mind that you contend is unsuitable for judging other ideas and propositions.
I do not negate the possibility that, after careful consideration of a longstanding tradition or custom, and despite not fully understanding its mechanisms and value, one is nevertheless not sufficiently confident that abolishing the tradition and custom is a good idea. It is entirely reasonable to weigh probabilities and unknowns within a particular context. But as I have said from the start: prudent reasons exist to abandon the antiquated antipathy that exists towards homosexuals and which underpins legislative discrimination against them.
A red herring. Gay marriage has nothing to do with market economics.
You, or rather Thomes Sowell, just articulated the reason: the information processing power of a centralized bureaucratic authority cannot match that of the free market.
You have not established any relationship or similarity between market economics and marriage. Prices enable the efficient distribution of resources amongst a society by communicating information upon which such efficiency is dependent. Marriage standards do not constitute a comparable emergent property: they are a social construct just as health and safety standards in the workplace are a social construct.
If it is your contention that there are important emergent properties that are dependent upon marital standards then identify them and show how they are affected by distinctions of sexuality.
It’s a simple question: What will happen if gay marriage is recognized? You seem to have no answer to it other than vague and unsupported generalities. What are we to fear from gay marriage other than fear itself?
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 6:38 pm
eszett (1,445) Says:
August 21st, 2012 at 3:28 pm
+1
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 6:38 pm
Hawaii upholds marriage as being between one man and one woman –
Yeh, right on. At least one country gets it.
~~CLAPS~~
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 6:41 pm
It’s not even gays who are pushing for gay marriage – not many want it, by all accounts. It is the Liberal Progressives who are pushing it for reasons that have nothing to do with homosexuality or marriage.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 6:50 pm
[New Zealand] Bishops damn gay marriage in letter
– http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/7513602/Bishops-damn-gay-marriage-in-letter
The letter, as its centre piece, says –
When Jesus was discussing marriage with his disciples he observed
“From the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (Mark 10:6-9)
– http://www.catholic.org.nz/nzcbc/fx-view-article.cfm?ctype=BSART&loadref=83&id=271
Jesus does not mention marriage for children
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 7:12 pm
Yeh, right on. At least one country gets it.
A state, not a country.
I am always amused that you quote things but don’t include the link.
Well, judging by the language it’s a neutral, non-religious and unbiased source. Or maybe not.
supporting the will of the people over that of a small group of activists
But if you support the will of the people here in New Zealand over the small group of activist, well, gay marriage is well on it’s way.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 7:17 pm
Just another reason to like Judith Collins, NZ’s very own Maggie Thatcher.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 7:25 pm
But if you support the will of the people here in New Zealand over the small group of activist, well, gay marriage is well on it’s way.
Eszett, I do not believe that the majority of the country is in favour of gay marriage. Even most gays do not want it.
I know liberals want it to seem that way, but I do not believe it is so.
In truth, I do not think that the liberal push has anything to do with “gays” or “marriage”. They have their own agenda.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 7:39 pm
Obama made his statement
Vote:Our mentally disturbed media ask Key his opinion
Labour gay MPs leap at the opportunity and introduce their bill
So what is Obama’s agenda which New Zealand seems to be grovelling to?
August 21st, 2012 at 7:48 pm
Of course you don’t, Fletch. There are many things in this world that are true and supported by evidence and yet you still don’t believe them.
Most gays don’t want it? But some do. Why deny them the right? Most people didn’t want to marry someone from the other race either.
And given the marriage and divorce rates you could argue that most straight people don’t want it either.
Not a very convincing argument.
Agenda? So now it’s the hidden conspiracy. Yes, gay marriage will finally give us liberal elites world dominance. You have seen through us, Fletch. How very smart of you.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 8:34 pm
Ha! Fletch!
You’re wrong when you say ‘most gay guys don’t want it.’
You are quoting a bar owner (whose primary interest is in serving drinks to single people) and saying that ‘most gay guys don’t want it.’ It’s not even a self-selecting survey; it’s one man’s opinion.
It’s like that report you lot quoted a couple of threads back where a researcher interviewed a bunch of guys at the bath-houses in San Francisco and proclaimed that all gay men were dangerously promiscuous. Well duh.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 9:36 pm
Fletch, will you now do us all a favour and move to Hawaii or is that place too fruity for you as well? How awesome that this tiny issue winds you up so much, you and your fundy friends. Why said most gays don’t want it? Ask any straight single man if he believes in marriage and he’ll say the same thing! Your pseudo science, and false gods, have no place in this debate.
Scott – what is the definition of the beginning of time? Is it, when your god decided to create life and the planet in 6 days a few thousand years ago, OR is it when the earth evolved through millions of years? Pretty sure marriage wasn’t even a word or concept in the prehistoric ages.
Please, somebody stop the madness!
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 10:10 pm
according to a listener interview with Louisa Wall, not even she wants to get married. Her Civil Union is enough
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 10:47 pm
Unfortunately, the centre-right is this country dominated by politics, rather than philosophy. We have Kiwiblog – a pro-National website and Whale Oil – an anti-Labour site. Rather than ideology, it seems that all that is ever analysed is tactics.
Amen to that.
That is the best and most efficient analysis of the situation I have ever read.
Like someone on this blog said a long time ago, the liberal elite run both sides of the political spectrum in this country, they differ only on economics and private property rights.
True conservatives are to scared to pop their head up for fear of being shot at from both sides, this issue being a perfect example.
Vote:August 21st, 2012 at 11:02 pm
Well, Shunda, just shows then that the “liberal elites” are far superior to the “true conservatives”, doesn’t it? I mean, according to you its a small minority who manage to con the majority into their objectives and the “true conservatives” are just helpless.
Vote:What a bunch of losers if they can’t even manage to control a simple topic like gay marriage.
August 22nd, 2012 at 1:13 am
Maybe it’s because the educated liberal “elites” have a far more convincing and non frothing tone to their voices unlike those who represent your side in this debate. You have Fletch, Andrei and Lucia Maria (who called Whale and Cactus Kate “Satan” today), you have the fantastically insane D4J and Redbaiter on either flank as your attack dogs, politicians like Colin Craig and religious folk like Graham Capall and the Flannagans all waving your flag for you.
And you wonder why we are in the majority and the world continues to move ahead. If you at least put somebody up front who wasn’t a nutcase then you might very well make a decent point once in a while. And you wonder why your team always feels betrayed by others, it’s because unlike you, the world evolves and grows up. Y
ou’d all be a right hoot to hang about with during the civil rights period.
Vote:August 22nd, 2012 at 9:03 am
Liberal Minded Kiwi (aka Clint Heine),
No I did not. I was pointing out demonic tactics in trying to get people to do something that they know is wrong. It’s always made out to be a little thing that won’t hurt a bit, except that is a lie.
Here is the actual post for any interested readers: What the devil sounds like when he’s trying to convince you to do something
Vote:August 22nd, 2012 at 9:05 am
Can’t agree with you liberal minded kiwi. In any debate it is almost always the atheists who are openly vitriolic. If you don’t believe me check General Debate on almost any given Sunday.
I think we have given plenty of reasoned debate. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman and has been so since the beginning of time. Now Liberals want to change it by government fiat. Government will say that marriage is what we say it is. A fundamental change to marriage. Something that no party has run on in the last election. If John Key had run on this in the last election, how do you think he would have gone? I suspect National would not be in government now if he said we are going to allow gay marriage during this parliamentary term.
Finally any assurances about the churches not being forced to perform gay marriages is not worth the paper it is written on. Check this out from the passing of civil unions bill
– Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour, Associate Minister of Justice):
1st Reading “Through the Civil Union Bill, the Government …is also confirming that in New Zealand marriage remains solely available to a man and a woman. Marriage will continue to be covered by a separate Act and recognised as a separate institution. …The social, religious, and traditional values associated with marriage will remain”
3rd Reading “Marriage remains something available solely to a man and a woman. Civil unions offer an alternative to those unable to marry, or who do not wish to marry.”
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister):
NZ Herald June 21 2004 “Should people who want to have legal recognition of a marriage be able to get it? The Government says yes, but you can’t marry. Marriage is only for heterosexuals. The Government is not — underline — not, changing the Marriage Act. That will remain as an option only for heterosexual couples.”
METIRIA TUREI (Green):
Vote:1st Reading “Marriage as understood in our society, and as formalised in law, is a specific culturally and historically bound institution. …This bill does not affect the Marriage Act. It does not change in any way the structure, the validity, of the institution of marriage.”
August 22nd, 2012 at 9:19 pm
Liberal Minded Kiwi, (aka Clint Heine)
First, I would be careful talking about the “educated” liberal elites and because you might find that some of the conservatives you criticise have a little bit more education in this topic than you do. I hear some NZ conservatives even have PhD’s in ethics and peer reviewed articles in various academic journals and books. Some of them even attended the same university you did. But then you knew that didn’t you Clint.
Second, if you bothered to do an philosophy or ethics course at that university you’d have I learn’t that when you criticise a position you disagree with your supposed to actually respond to their argument. Simply calling them names like “nutcase” trying to subtlety suggest they are pedophiles, lying about their education level, or pointing out they are religious does not do this.
Moreover, if the fact someone is religious means there are argument can be dismissed as crap then I can dismiss your arguments as crap. Dr Margaret Mayham and Glyn Cardy are also religious and they are offering the arguments you do.
Vote:Let me know when you have a substantive point to make. Instead of hiding behind pseudonyms and defaming people by insinuating without evidence that they are paedophiles.
August 22nd, 2012 at 9:21 pm
“Lucia Maria (who called Whale and Cactus Kate “Satan” today), ”
I guess she should have been rational and tried to insinuate they were on par with pedophiles and child molesters, far more sensible and rational than calling them demonic.
Vote:August 23rd, 2012 at 3:13 am
Excuse me, I am not Clint, try again. I thought it was agaist blog policy to “out” people anyway.
Play the argument not the alleged person. Good luck with building that fallout shelter for when the evil gays take over the world.
Vote:August 23rd, 2012 at 3:27 am
You are sounding rather snippy about this Matthew. I wonder why? You’re not doing a very good job with your amateur “sluthing” skills and trying desperately to justify why you spent all those years at University doing a philosophy degree. And you wonder why you were hated as much at Otago than you were at Waikato – where I remember you both so well.
Got a job yet Matthew?
Vote:August 23rd, 2012 at 8:44 am
If she would have tried to insinuate that, she would have been neither rational nor sensible. Such an insinuation would not only be wrong, it would have been morally reprehensible.
But the folks have experience trying to rationalise morally reprehensible positions the based on their religious dogma. Where it really gets funny is when they start evoking even more silly fanatsies like “the devil”
I often wonder if Lucia ever considered that the devil (if he/she in fact did exist) would sound very much like a self-righteous, dogmatic, bible-thumping ultra-conservative catholic when spreading evil and destruction through the world.
Vote:August 23rd, 2012 at 9:04 am
Its all moot though isn’t it?
Homosexuals may well be allowed to marry due to the vitiolic campaign by DPF and others and the poor imitations of people of principle our politicians are.
But that won’t change their subculture’s lifestyle of toilet and bath house banging will it?
Having it off as a “oncer” is not considered “an affair or cheating” in their culture as long as it is once.
That’s why having 8 partners a year whilst “in a relationship” is considered ok according to one article I read.
Sick.
Vote:August 23rd, 2012 at 9:24 am
My 2 cents – Subculture? You glean your facts according to one article?
You make this too easy for the equality for all crowd to snigger at you and your desperate attempts to deprive gays the same rights as you and me.
Still waiting for my old WSU mucker Matthew Flannagan to answer my comments.
Vote:August 23rd, 2012 at 9:36 am
LMK,
I think “my 2 cents” is one of those gay activists that Andrei mentioned, saying ridiculous things to make opposition to gay marriage seem ridiculous.
Vote:August 23rd, 2012 at 9:43 am
Liberal minded Kiwi.
Yes I have a job, thanks for confirming your comments insinuating others are not educated are false.
“Play the argument not the alleged person. Good luck with building that fallout shelter for when the evil gays take over the world.”
Great comment, Read it again, look at your comments above, and have a good think, see if you can grasp the problem.
At Waikato there was this logic course in 1st year where they taught you about the ad hominen fallacy, your a good educated liberal see if you can find out what it refers to.
Vote:August 23rd, 2012 at 10:11 am
Ryan, I agree that you should not base your opinions on one article. But seeing you dismissed the comment as ridiculous. Here is my question if a person could provide numerous peer reviewed studies suggesting there was something that could be called a “bath house” subculture amougst male homosexuals an showed that homosexual couples are almost never monogamous would you consider that or dismiss it as “homophobia”
Vote:August 23rd, 2012 at 11:18 am
….would you consider that or dismiss it as “homophobia”
I would consider it irrelevant. You could use the same argument against straight couples, there are a number of “sub-cultures”, if you will, that are different and not monogamous. How is that relevant to marriage?
And how is monogamy a pre-requiste for marriage? Is virginity a pre-requiste as well. How much promiscuity will you tolerate in straight people vs homosexuals. Couples can be married and have different, perfectly acceptable arrangements on how to conduct themselves sexually.
In essence, this is trying to paint homosexuality as somehow sexually deviant and therefore not fit for marriage. Truth be told, there are great variations in sexual behaviour amongst homosexuals as there are within heterosexuals (married and un-married).
Vote:August 23rd, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Eszett, you’ll note I didn’t ask if it was relevant, the commenters above dismissed a particular claim as obvious false, and evidence of stupidity. I am clarifying if they will stick by this re-action if credible evidence for it was presented. Thats actually a different question.
Your question “how is monogamy a pre-requsite for marriage?” is interesting. The Bill itself prohibits polygamous unions and politicians and other commentators have stated that claims the Bill will lead to legalising polygamous unions is hysterical scaremongering. So, according to the proponents of the Bill monogamy is a pre-requiste for marriage. Perhaps you can ask them your question so that at least those who support it have there story straight.
Vote:August 23rd, 2012 at 1:06 pm
Matt, you realise that not being monogamous is not the same as polygamy, don’t you? A lot of straight couples are not monogamous (at one point or the other and some more frequent than others), do you think they are all polygamous?
So no, the proponents of the bill have no such definition. It may be desirable, but there is no such requirement.
Vote:August 23rd, 2012 at 1:09 pm
There’s good reason to believe that. I’m not aware of any serious campaign for legalising polygamous unions, there are no Member’s Bills on it, so there is no current chance of it even being considered by parliament.
I would expect there would be strong public opposition to legalising polygamous unions, but I doubt it would even be polled it’s that far off the radar.
Vote:August 23rd, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Ten years ago you would have been saying I would expect there would be strong public opposition to legalising
polygamousgay unions, but I doubt it would even be polled it’s that far off the radar.Ten years from now who knows what abomination you will be defending – assuming of course that some new law hasn’t been passed in the interim which requires you to be put down as surplus to the requirements of society and in your own best interests of course.
Vote:August 23rd, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Ten years ago civil unions and marriage were being proposed, one ended up happening, one is about to happen which is just a minor step on.
I never seen any serious call for legalising polygamous unions. So while it’s possible it seems as about as likely as being compelled to marry our grandmother’s aunt.
Vote:August 23rd, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Pete
I don’t recall saying that polygamous unions would be legalized in the future I was responding to eszett’s comment which was that monogamy was not essential to marriage and one can’t cite lack of monogamy as a reason to restrict marriage. One can’t consistenly make this claim and oppose polygamous marriages.
Moreover Pete I think this response is something of a straw man because the argument conservatives make is not that same sex marriage if legalized will lead to polygamy and incest being recognized as marriage. Its rather that the premises or arguments used to justify are such that if these arguments are valid then arguments for incestuous and polygamous unions are valid.
Vote:August 23rd, 2012 at 6:16 pm
I don’t recall saying that polygamous unions would be legalized in the future I was responding to eszett’s comment which was that monogamy was not essential to marriage and one can’t cite lack of monogamy as a reason to restrict marriage. One can’t consistenly make this claim and oppose polygamous marriages.
Monogamy is NOT essential to marriage, yet has nothing to do with polygamy. In fact, there are straight couples that are not monogamous. It doesn’t invalidate their marriage. To use the argument that gays are less monogamous against allowing them to marry is intellectually dishonest
Moreover Pete I think this response is something of a straw man because the argument conservatives make is not that same sex marriage if legalized will lead to polygamy and incest being recognized as marriage.
Actually they do. Just see Andrei’s post at 1:26
Its rather that the premises or arguments used to justify are such that if these arguments are valid then arguments for incestuous and polygamous unions are valid.
Again, this argument was also used against inter racial marriage. “Allow inter racial marriage what’s next? Polygamy? Incest”
Vote:Funnily enough they never came up with gay marriage.
August 23rd, 2012 at 6:28 pm
You are full of bullshit and you are making stuff up – lying in other words.
There was never a debate over interracial marriage – a few Southern States had anti-miscegenation laws on their books.
An inter-racial couple originally from Virginia but residing in Washington DC got married there perfectly legally without bother or fuss.
But when they returned to Virginia they were prosecuted under Virginian law. The issue went to the Supreme Court were it was ruled that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law was unconstitutional.
There was never a large scale public debate nor controversy over that supreme court decision
Vote:August 23rd, 2012 at 7:13 pm
@ Andrei, yes, I know you wish I was
Have a read here:
http://www.equalitygiving.org/files/Marriage-Equality-Same-Sex-Lesbian-Gay-Marriage/Arguments_Against_Interracial_Marriage_and_Equal_Marriage.pdf
And here:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/05/funny-how-arguments-against-gay-marriage-are-just-those-against-miscegenation/52108/
No matter how much you stomp you feet and call me a liar, it’s same people with the same arguments.
Vote:August 23rd, 2012 at 7:27 pm
You’re not particularly intelligent are you eszett?
You present testimony from two court cases that are ancient history, both of which found that inter racial marriage was ok and the evidence you cite is about the harm that results from the mixed race children that are products of inter racial couplings.
ie Those who opposed mixed race marriages did so because they thought mixed race children would be bad for society.
We all disagree that that position as did the judges at the time.
It has nothing to do with the opposition we have to non fecund same sex marriages Nothing It is a giant red herring thrown up to muddy the waters
Vote:August 23rd, 2012 at 7:36 pm
@Matt
Its rather that the premises or arguments used to justify are such that if these arguments are valid then arguments for incestuous and polygamous unions are valid.
Of course the argument of consenting adults is a strong one for gay marriage and also is equally valid for “incestuous and polygamous unions.” There is no denying that. However it doesn’t invalidate the argument. Consenting adults can and was used for many issues, including e.g. for straight marriage or inter-racial marriage. Consenting adults were used for civil unions.
In fact, the argument one man/one woman for bearing children can equally be used for justifying incestuous marriage.
There are of course some issues to consider:
)
For one both polygamy and consensual incest are strong social taboos, the latter probably stronger than former. And both are extremely rare, again probably the latter more than the former. (Well, you could very well argue that the royal families over the centuries have provided a pretty decent precedent for incestuous relationships
With incest there is also the medical implication to children to consider, depending on the closeness.
With polygamy there are legal implications that need to be considered.
Homosexuality on the other hand is neither a social taboo nor extremely rare. It is leagl, there are numerous gay couples living openly and freely together,
Too say we can’t use arguments for gay marriage because they can be used for incestuous and polygamous relationships, is just disingenuous and false.
Vote:August 23rd, 2012 at 7:48 pm
You present testimony from two court cases that are ancient history, both of which found that inter racial marriage was ok and the evidence you cite is about the harm that results from the mixed race children that are products of inter racial couplings.
Read the PDF, andrei, the two court cases are the ones relating to polygamy and incest, which was the topic. Many more in there.
We all disagree that that position as did the judges at the time.
You do now, but you still use the same arguments against same sex marriage they used against inter racial marriage. It’s right there in plain black and white but you keep denying it.
It has nothing to do with the opposition we have to non fecund same sex marriages Nothing It is a giant red herring thrown up to muddy the waters
If anything is a giant red herring, then it’s your non-fecund argument, your insistent that a marriage is only valid if it can produce offspring. That is just absurd nonsense that you make up.
Not only is it false, because they can, they just need outside help, which is common with straight couples that can’t concieve.
But, more importantly, you also insult all the straight marriages that cannot conceive naturally.
It just goes to show what a decent human being you are in your quest against homosexuality.
Vote:August 23rd, 2012 at 7:56 pm
@Andrei – “You present testimony from two court cases that are ancient history”
ANCIENT history? Good grief, man. Some of the readers of this blog were alive when this was going on. ANCIENT history, sheesh.
Vote:August 23rd, 2012 at 9:49 pm
@Andrei – “You present testimony from two court cases that are ancient history”
All of your reasons are based on your ancient belief system.
How do you feel about married straights choosing not to have children? Are they as bad as those awful gay people?
Vote: