How they voted details

August 30th, 2012 at 6:40 am by David Farrar

For media and others who are interested in a breakdown by the numbers, here they are:

  • All MPs 80 – 40
  • Electorate MPs 45 – 25
  • List MPs 35 – 15 (1 non vote)
  • Female MPs 32 – 7
  • Male MPs 48 – 33 (1 non vote)
  • Asian MPs 1-3 (1 non vote)
  • European MPs 60 – 29
  • Maori MPs 17 – 4
  • Pacific MPs 2 – 4
  • 20s MPs – 2-0
  • 30s MPs 11 – 2
  • 40s MPs 20 – 18
  • 50s MPs 34 – 13 (1 non vote)
  • 60s MPs 12 – 7
  • 70s MPs 1-0
  • Auckland MPs 29 – 12 (1 non vote)
  • Christchurch MPs  11 – 2
  • Provincial MPs 10 – 12
  • Rural MPs 16 – 12
  • Wellington MPs 14 – 2
  • North Island MPs 58 – 32 (1 non vote)
  • South Island MPs 22 – 8
  • National MPs 30-29
  • Labour MPs 30-3 (1 non vote)
  • Green MPs 14-0
  • NZ First MPs 0-8
  • Maori Party MPs 3-0
  • Mana, ACT, United all 1-0
  • Cabinet Ministers 14-6
  • All Ministers 20-8
  • Gay MPs 3-1
  • Lesbian MPs 3-0
  • “Straight” MPs 74 – 39 (1 non vote)
  • 1970s MPs 0-1
  • 1980s MPs 7-1
  • 1990s MPs 11-9
  • 2002 MPs 5-1
  • 2005 MPs 18 – 6
  • 2008 MPs 22 – 11 (1 non vote)
  • 2011 MPs 16 – 11

A few interesting facts stand out.

  • Female MPs voted 4-1 in favour and Male MPs around 3-2 in favour
  • MPs in their 40s more against than those in their 50s or 60s
  • In the three main cities it was 54 – 16 in favour – more than 3:1
  • Provincial MPs were overall against, but rural MPs were in favour
  • 1 gay MP voted against (on grounds that the state should register unions, and churches, mosques etc confer marriage)
  • MPs who entered in the 1990s were most against

Now let’s look at changes in votes over time

  • John Bank and Lockwood Smith voted against decriminalising homosexual behaviour in 1986 but in 2012 voted in favour of . Winston Peters voted against in 1986 and in 2012. Peter Dunne, Phil Goff, Annette King, Trevor Mallard voted yes both times.
  • MPs who voted against civil unions and for same sex marriage are Gerry Brownlee, David Carter, Judith Collins, Clayton Cosgrove, Peter Dunne, Paul Hutchison, John Key, Murray McCully, Lockwood Smith, Tariana Turia, Maurice Williamson

Wasn’t planning to comment in detail on the speeches, except to note as often with conscience issues it is at its finest – MPs speaking from the heart on what they believe. Hunua MP Paul Hutchison spoke of his issues and concerns but concluded saying:

Although I would have personally preferred a slower process regarding this legislation as I said earlier, I simply cannot construct an intellectual, moral, health, or spiritual argument against it—in fact the reverse is very much the case. I support it.

You could tell this was an issue he had grappled with, and spent a long time considering.

Anyway, vote over on this issue (for now). The vote/s on the alcohol purchase age will be at 5.30 pm tonight!

Tags: , ,

119 Responses to “How they voted details”

  1. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,570 comments) says:

    Gets popcorn….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Mobile Michael (451 comments) says:

    Let’s hope the liberal mood prevails again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Welcome to modernity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. big bruv (13,884 comments) says:

    OK…so the bill passed it’s first reading….

    How many people woke to find that their marriage had fallen apart because this bill had passed it’s first reading? How many people woke to find that their families have been devastated?

    One has to wonder just how stupid the religious bigots feel this morning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    David Clark spoke during the debate, by far his best effort. One of the most pertinent comments he made:

    The strongest support for marriage equality that I have experienced has come from the age group most likely to be engaging in marriage in the future. It is for those people who will be inheriting and carrying forward the institution of marriage that I am supporting the bill.

    Transcript and video: David Clark’s speech on marriage bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Louisa Wall has risen to the occasion as a new MP and shown many far more experienced MPs how to do a great job. She has presented and promoted her bill with knowledge, dignity and passion. She has listened to criticisms and arguments against her bill and she has answered them well.

    Video and transcripts of Wall’s opening and closing speeches.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. iMP (2,384 comments) says:

    “John Bank and Lockwood Smith voted against decriminalising homosexual behaviour in 1986 but in 2012 voted in favour of same sex marriage. ”

    DPF, it is misleading to equate a First Reading aye vote with agreement to same-sex marriage. It is simply an agreement to Introduce the bill, allow debate, and submissions from the public. You are weighting it. Several MPs who voted Aye last night will vote against this bill at 2nd and 3rd Readings.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    National 30 for, 29 against.

    The bottom line- more than 50% of the John Key National government including the Prime Minister voted with Labour for a bill introduced by an opposition member.

    Remember well readers, this event underscores so well the major problem facing NZ, and that is that the National Party has been completely infiltrated by Progressives.

    It no longer exists as a counter to left wing Progressivism but effectively promotes it.

    A vote for National at the next election is by proxy a vote for Labour.

    If you want to see NZ change course, don’t waste your vote on National.

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

    While I agree with Pete George about Louisa Wall, I thought Nikki Kaye had the best overall speech. This was the strongest performance I have seen from her. She drew the perfect line between representing her electorate and own views.

    I thought NZ First’s approach was attention seeking.

    Redbaiter – Who do you think Torys and Neolibs should vote for if it’s not National?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    “It is simply an agreement to Introduce the bill, allow debate, and submissions from the public.”

    It also tests the waters, and in this case, indicates a general level of support for the proposition.

    In this respect we have learned well who are the betrayers of NZ Conservatives, with John Banks at the top of the list.

    http://truebluenz.com/2012/08/29/john-banks-has-there-ever-been-a-more-useless-political-prick/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Fletch (6,367 comments) says:

    Are you sure you haven’t got your blog post titles mixed up, and it isn’t this post that’s headed, A New level Of Stupidity?

    It should be.

    I am embarrassed for New Zealand. Our parliament is still carrying out the agenda of Helen Clark and the Sisterhood.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    I agree that NZ First (Peters) was the fizzer, and attempt to grandstand that fell flat.

    And I agree that Nikki Kaye’s speech was also very good – video link and transcript.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Fletch (6,367 comments) says:

    Pete, Peters’ speech was easily one of the best.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. The Peanut Monster (19 comments) says:

    And the US just went the other way. The GOP has now voted to try for a constitutional amendment defining marriage formally as between a man and woman. Interesting legislative approach seems no one likes this ambiguity, clarity is clearly required no matter what side you stand on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Fletch (6,367 comments) says:

    And the US just went the other way.

    Little ‘ol NZ – always trying to be first at something. We’re like the little brother that has to prove himself by doing something stupid to draw attention to himself so as to get noticed by all the big countries.

    Wall doesn’t have any idea what she is doing. She’s another Sue Bradford.

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

    I was surprised John Banks voted for the Bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    I wasn’t.

    Banks has always talked big and acted small.

    The public are fed up with the treachery of politicians and Banks’s vote has emphasized just how untrustworthy most of them are in parliament today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    While I agree with Pete George about Louisa Wall, I thought Nikki Kaye had the best overall speech.

    Agree, Nikki Kaye was very good, strangely proud to be represented by her, even though I must admit I didn’t vote for her.

    I did watch the whole debate and I agree with David, it was Parliament at its finest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Little ‘ol NZ – always trying to be first at something. We’re like the little brother that has to prove himself by doing something stupid to draw attention to himself so as to get noticed by all the big countries.

    Like being the first to give women the right to vote, you mean?

    Because on same sex marriage with are not the first.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    “it was Parliament at its finest.”

    How nausea inducing.

    Nothing is more disappointing about the state of NZ in that so many of its citizens dwell in such jelly backed sycophantic reverence for this den of thieves and charlatans.

    I’m with H. L. Mencken-

    “The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing.The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.”

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

    I would still be interested in known which parties, if any, Neolibs and Conservatives should vote for in light of his anti National view.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Manolo (13,746 comments) says:

    Agree, Nikki Kaye was very good, strangely proud to be represented by her, even though I must admit I didn’t vote for her.

    No surprises there. The blonde National Party MP is as much a socialist as you are.
    Welcome to today’s Labour lite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Fletch (3,244) Says:
    August 30th, 2012 at 8:19 am

    Pete, Peters’ speech was easily one of the best.

    Yeah, if anyone needed any further proof of your warped perception of reality, it’s probably this.

    Peters is just a self-absorbed, attention-seeking demagogue and his speech was nothing but a testament of that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Wayne91 (142 comments) says:

    Really over it – Seems to be getting far more attention than it deserves, get it done and move on to far more important issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    How nausea inducing.

    The mental image of redbaiter puking his guts out over this is strangely satisfying.

    He must be puking rainbows. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    @Fletch

    Excuse me while I laugh as your petty conservative and religious worldview is stripped away.
    I actually don’t give a damn either way about gay marriage. I am not gay and not religious so it doesn’t really affect me in any way.

    But what I do give a damn about is people imposing their own antiquated moral outrage upon the rest of us as if we should care.

    Heh, suck it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Andrei (2,639 comments) says:

    While the idiots celebrate the sorts of things they say wont happen, start to happen.

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

    Manolo – If she (Nikki Kaye) is more of a socialist than me, why is she a Tory MP who votes against raising the minimum wage? I somewhat doubt she is more of a socialist than me. I support a massive rise in the minimum wage and a 100% tax rate on income over NZ$420,000 per annum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    @Andrei

    Why do you care what these people do?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Peters’ speech was easily one of the best.

    It was a flailing around trying to stand out as important but being left in the dust of irrelevance. It will be quickly forgotten in an otherwise historic parliamentary event.

    It was ironic that two parties claiming they value a decent democratic process whipped their MPs in what was supposed to be a conscience vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Andrei,

    So three people have a civil union. Big deal. The next thing for conservatives to get their panties in a twist over. So preoccupied with what everyone else is doing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    and a 100% tax rate on income over NZ$420,000 per annum.

    Really Hamnida? You now believe in tax cuts? It was 110% you were lobbying for just a few days ago. At this rate you will be down to 25% in a few weeks

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

    bhudson – the 10% on top of 100% was a fine on the employer for paying such an obscene salary.

    On $200,000 a year, you could pay a $1,000,000 mortgage in 10 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    “the 10% on top of 100% was a fine on the employer for paying such an obscene salary”

    What an idiotic idea. An employer can pay what it likes.
    Who are you to take that choice away?

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

    I am not taking the choice away. In fact, I welcome any employer wishing to pay the fine. The money will be used to address New Zealand’s child poverty shame and ensure very home is insulated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. IHStewart (388 comments) says:

    Congratulations Louisa Wall isn’t it refreshing to see some fresh faces in Labour and even better seeing them get some points on the scoreboard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. hamish_nzl (21 comments) says:

    > “Remember well readers, this event underscores so well the major problem facing NZ, and that is that the National Party has been completely infiltrated by Progressives.”

    Or, rather, how society has become more progressive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    “I am not taking the choice away.”
    Yes you are.

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

    Puking rainbows….bahaha…i’ll find a nice, caring gay person to hold his hair back from his face

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Wayne91 (142 comments) says:

    IHStewart – is that what this is about? point scoring?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Paulus (2,626 comments) says:

    The show is not over until the Fat Lady Sings, remember.

    This change does not phase me, but I am sick and tired of this country being run by vociferous (and often vicious) minorities.
    Like the Greenpeace party they cannot ever accept that there is an alternative view without being vilified whether it be Maori or the Gay Community.

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

    hamish_nzl – I don’t see the Bill English economic recovery strategy, if there is one, as progressive. It seems regressive in the sense he is simply repeating the mistakes of 1984 – 1999 finance ministers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Wayne91 (142 comments) says:

    Paulus – “This change does not phase me, but I am sick and tired of this country being run by vociferous (and often vicious) minorities.”

    Hear hear!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    “but I am sick and tired of this country being run by vociferous (and often vicious) minorities.”

    FYI – the majority of NZers appear to support this bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. hamish_nzl (21 comments) says:

    @Hamnida – well we’re talking about a conscience vote, where MPs have a freer reign to evaluate the merits of policy on right and wrong, instead of dogma and ideology.

    @Paulus you do know this is a Nat led government? And that a majority of Nats voted in favour? As well as Act and UF? You have an evidence related deficiency in your argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    The Contrarian- “FYI – the majority of NZers appear to support this bill.”

    Yeah, sure they do-

    GayNZ-

    “we need to shut down the calls for binding referenda. ”

    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
  47. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    @Redbaiter

    I am sorry you closeted world is being stripped away. You’ll always have the reds under the bed though.

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

    Of Course I think Hunua MP Paul Hutchison was talking out of his arse!

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

    IMP
    “DPF, it is misleading to equate a First Reading aye vote with agreement to same-sex marriage. It is simply an agreement to Introduce the bill, allow debate, and submissions from the public. You are weighting it. Several MPs who voted Aye last night will vote against this bill at 2nd and 3rd Readings.”

    It wasn’t misleading, DPF has known what he is doing from day 1 on this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Griff (7,679 comments) says:

    Suck on that f undies
    We will make you marry cats next bwaaaahha hah

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Manolo (13,746 comments) says:

    It wasn’t misleading, DPF has known what he is doing from day 1 on this.

    With a skerrick of a doubt. His line has been transparent and obvious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. IHStewart (388 comments) says:

    @Wayne91

    ” IHStewart – is that what this is about? point scoring? ”

    In short yes. It is politics. But I said points on the scoreboard that is subtly different to point scoring particularly with regard to a members bill that isn’t being whipped.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Wayne91 (142 comments) says:

    IHStewart – yes it is politics after all

    “members bill that isn’t being whipped” – sounds a bit kinky, maybe appropriate for this subject? Glad to here no members are getting there bills whipped!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. alex (304 comments) says:

    Great post, very useful breakdown of the numbers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    You’ll always have the reds under the bed though.

    And in the closet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Mark (1,488 comments) says:

    If in parliament I would have voted for this bill at first reading even though there are elements that I do not agree with. They are for discussion at the select committee stage. I have some concern that the Churches who disagree with gay marriage will be forced to perform marriages under the Human Rights Act. I do not consider this legislation should force churches into a position that is contrary to their beliefs and hopefully this is addressed.

    I am not a supporter of gay adoption and you can see that as the consequential pressure point.

    Otherwise this is a bill about individual rights that has no impact on me. If my children turn out to be gay I will not love them any less and I would want them to have the opportunity to marry their partner if that was their choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Mark,

    I have some concern that the Churches who disagree with gay marriage will be forced to perform marriages under the Human Rights Act.

    Arguable if Parliament did not expressly permit celebrants to refuse service.

    I am not a supporter of gay adoption and you can see that as the consequential pressure point.

    Otherwise this is a bill about individual rights that has no impact on me. If my children turn out to be gay I will not love them any less and I would want them to have the opportunity to marry their partner if that was their choice.

    But you wouldn’t want them to adopt children. They can’t be trusted. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,570 comments) says:

    Griff – comment of the day!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    I have some concern that the Churches who disagree with gay marriage will be forced to perform marriages under the Human Rights Act. I do not consider this legislation should force churches into a position that is contrary to their beliefs and hopefully this is addressed.

    Louisa Wall addressed this in her speech introducing the bill:

    What my bill does not do is require any person or church to carry out a marriage if it does not fit with the beliefs of the celebrant or the religious interpretation a church has. Section 29 remains in place and makes it clear that once a marriage licence is obtained by a couple, it does not oblige a minister or celebrant to marry that couple. That is the situation now and nothing will change.

    So no change there, same as it’s been.

    And who would try and force an unwilling celebrant to marry them? This seems to be another fear of something very unlikely to happen. About as likely as a priest forcing a couple to allow him to marry them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    “Otherwise this is a bill about individual rights that has no impact on me. ”

    It may have an impact on your children and/or grandchildren.

    This bill is mainly about the State putting its stamp of approval on the homosexual lifestyle.

    This will affect how children view sexual experimentation when combined with what they are taught in many schools.

    http://familyfirst.org.nz/2012/08/schools-informed-of-agenda-of-sex-ed-groups/

    http://familyfirst.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Slides.ppt

    Are you happy with your children being taught this crap promoting experimenting with homosexuality?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    “Suck on that f undies
    We will make you marry cats next bwaaaahha hah”

    Grif, on the same side as John Key.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. hamish_nzl (21 comments) says:

    > Chuck: “It may have an impact on your children and/or grandchildren.”

    Hopefully. The suicide rate for young people in the gay community is appalling.

    I’ll choose a health message that produces positive outcomes, over a morality message that promotes suffering and harm.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    This bill is mainly about the State putting its stamp of approval on the homosexual lifestyle.

    AH, Chucky showing his true colours again.

    Hate to break it to you, but you are about 25 years behind The state approved of the “homosexual lifestyle” (whatever that may be) in 1986 when it decriminalised homosexuality.

    But it shows what truly bothers you. It’s not really gay marriage.
    You are just a sad old man who is consumed by his blind hatred of homosexuality.
    Have you ever considered how ashamed your grandchildren are going to be of you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    Hamish, did you check the links?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    Never mind ‘bator old thing. At least you can still bend over in front of your full length George Clooney photo. :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    This bill is mainly about the State putting its stamp of approval on the homosexual lifestyle.

    Chuck, seriously, you are a bit of a fuckwit really. It does no such thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    It does no such thing.

    …except to expose Chuck’s real objection

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

    Good work Chuck. Shoving homosexuality down the throats of the young IS key to the homosexual agenda – first the children, then the culture.

    Lesbian political commentator and author Tammy Bruce explains;

    “For the gay establishment, the death of right and wrong began when gaining civil rights for decent people ceased to be enough. As the Gay Elite found Americans willing to tolerate and even accept their divergent lifestyle and point of view they began exploiting that compassion. Thus began the furtherance of a campaign that, although promoted in the name of tolerance, understanding and compassion, has nothing to do with acceptance of homosexuals and everything to do with eliminating the lines of decency and morality across the board”

    And if anyone believes for a second that homosexual activists are going to be content with “marriage equality” then they are sadly mistaken. Like in the Netherlands and Spain, homosexual activist groups will be actively campaigning to lower the age of sexual consent – remember Labour have already dipped their toes in the water on that one. One of the first gay rights campaigns, the 1972 Gay Rights Platform laid out three foundation policy positions which have not been rescinded or altered in nigh on 40 years. These are:

    1 – Repeal of all laws prohibiting sexual acts involving consenting persons (see that ! “persons” not “adults”)
    2 – Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent
    3 – Repeal of all laws that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.

    Thanks to decades of turgid social engineering and slick propaganda, much of wider society has been led down a rabbit hole on this stuff to the point where corruption is now disguised as freedom.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Griff (7,679 comments) says:

    Red baiter on the same side as………………..
    …………..
    thats a hard one……….
    ………….
    ………….
    Redbaiter!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    Urban Redneck

    Are you simply too fucking stupid to understand the difference between individuals rights on the one hand and the political agendas of those who purport to represent any particular sector of the community? Do you think that people actually choose to go all homo as part of some great pinko libbo conspiracy.

    BTW, it’s a rhetorical question – no need to answer because I know you are too fucking stupid to appreciate the distinction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. MeanMaoriMean (1 comment) says:

    I don’t agree with this Bill one iota. I’m disappointed that so few Maori MPs opposed the Bill actually. Hika, what is happening here? Allowing the sacred institution of Marriage to be corrupted by SSM, is WRONG. I see a lot of religious criticism and it saddens me much. All free countries were built on religious freedom, and a foundation of christian principles.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. hamish_nzl (21 comments) says:

    @MeanMoariMean you disagree because of religious freedom, except there are churches that support same sex marriage. Similarly, I’m a married atheist, and yet my marriage is as valid as any performed in a church.

    If you’re going to say it’s wrong, at least explain why.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. luke_nz (4 comments) says:

    “Although I would have personally preferred a slower process regarding this legislation as I said earlier, I simply cannot construct an intellectual, moral, health, or spiritual argument against it—in fact the reverse is very much the case. I support it.”

    This says more about Paul Hutchison than about the arugement against the Bill. Others have constructed such arguments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    First they abolished slavery.
    Then they made women equal (sort of).
    Then they abolished racial discrimination.
    Then they made people disbelieve in God.
    Then they made people not believe in God in the first place.
    Then they brainwashed everyone into becoming homosexual.

    Cunning buggers, eh.

    Then…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Fletch (6,367 comments) says:

    Are you simply too fucking stupid to understand the difference between individuals rights on the one hand and the political agendas of those who purport to represent any particular sector of the community? Do you think that people actually choose to go all homo as part of some great pinko libbo conspiracy.

    davincimode, of course not – use some logic.
    People go homo first and then decide to get political and force their views on society.

    As Aristotle wrote in The Ethics, “men start revolutionary changes for reasons connected with their private lives.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. wat dabney (3,756 comments) says:

    People go homo first and then decide to get political and force their views on society.

    Where “their views” means simply wanting to be treated equally before the law.

    If that means they are “forcing their views on society” then the very best of luck to them. Everyone who believes in liberty supports them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    “Everyone who believes in liberty supports them.”

    You sad irrational moron.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    Gays are not forcing their views on anyone Fletch. That is a Lie.

    The gays want the Department of Internal Affairs to issue them a Marriage license, then they want to go away and mind their own business again.

    The only people forcing their views on anyone else are the anti- lobby, who are saying NO! The Department of Internal Affairs SHOULD NOT start issuing marriage licenses to gays!

    Why do you Christian Taliban types have to lie like this, Fletch?

    Is it because your lies (“gays are forcing their views on society!!!”) start to feel like they aren’t really lies, if you keep repeating them often enough?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. wat dabney (3,756 comments) says:

    Redbaiter has rather been found out by this issue. It turns out he loves using the state to force his views on people just as much as Sue Bradford.

    We shall call him Sue from now on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    Redbaiter & Sue Bradford, now there’s a strange pair of bedfellows. :lol:

    At least it proves he isn’t GAY, I guess…?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. nasska (11,473 comments) says:

    RRM

    Just desperate! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    A bill sold to the masses by DPF as helping end discrimination …. and the analysis helps us discriminate against the voters on practically every classification (apart from by favourite toothpaste). Classy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Reid (16,442 comments) says:

    Pete George quotes David Clark:

    The strongest support for marriage equality that I have experienced has come from the age group most likely to be engaging in marriage in the future. It is for those people who will be inheriting and carrying forward the institution of marriage that I am supporting the bill.

    Here’s the thing. Who the fuck thinks gay people will “respect” the institution of marriage in decades/generations to come? They respect sex. That’s the foundation of their relationship. It’s not to procreate children, which is why people today, by and large, get married.

    No.

    They did this so they can change the perception of marriage amongst joe and jane sixpack so it becomes just another mere social formality and so your average “family” consists of a woman and various children, each from a different father, with a current “father” whose the actual father of none of the kids and where most people have 5-6 “marriages” in their lifetimes.

    Where does leave the human race?

    Urban Redneck points to a smoking gun social engineering truth, as in: “why the fuck would they want to set out to do that in the 70’s?” but do any of you bleeding heart progressive idiots pick up on that obvious question? No of course not, you fucking morons continue to bleat nonsensically about human wights, as if gays didn’t already have them in the first place.

    Talk about mental. All you proponents of this bill share the Oscar on this one, you really do.

    P.S. Most gays are, like you proponents, useful idiots. They didn’t do this deliberately, they reacted as the social engineer’s propaganda designed them to react. So you ask your average gay, they wouldn’t have any idea they were destroying the family unit, why would they. But they are, and you fools share their responsibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    The [insert from *list] want the Department of Internal Affairs to issue them a Marriage license, then they want to go away and mind their own business again.

    The *list:
    1. Polygamists
    2. Polyandrists
    3. Men who want to marry their sons
    4. Women who want to marry their grandmothers
    5. People who want to marry their dogs
    6. People who want to marry their artworks

    Etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. nasska (11,473 comments) says:

    krazykiwi

    You’re a bad loser….if a bill allowing gays to voluntarily marry each other gets you upset now you’ll be apoplectic when gay marriage becomes compulsory. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. wat dabney (3,756 comments) says:

    Reid,

    Like Redbaiter, you seem very confused as to what “social engineering” is and what it isn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    Fletch

    If that’s your idea of logic, then you’re an even bigger fuckwit than I already thought you were. I think you managed to encapsulate homo bigotry at its most fundamental level. You haven’t, by any chance, considered the cock option have you at some stage in your life and felt a bit uncomfortable afterwards? You seem to be a classic case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    RRM

    The Beast of Tauranga and the Green Gargoyle. A fearful prospect forged on the anvil of [shudder font] Idon’tknowwhatbutitcan’tbepleasant. :(

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    No of course not, you fucking morons continue to bleat nonsensically about human wights, as if gays didn’t already have them in the first place.

    They didn’t Reid. Not all. But we are now heading down the road to liberating us all by ensuring they do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    bhudson – the law denies me entry to womans sports events, and natures denies me the opportunity to bear a child. Are my human right violated by these restrictions? Surely the liberation of human rights that you aspire to knows no such boundaries… and society should use all its resources to attain these lofty heights?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. civil serpent (23 comments) says:

    Reid – you’re an unmitigated contumelious fuckwit. You’ve blustered and blathered and bullied for weeks on end about “social engineering” when you have no idea whatsoever what that is. You’ve bullshitted and big-noted like an unwanted drunk at a party (“wights” and “discwimination” – OMG that’s the cleverest funniest thing I’ve ever heard). You’ve wasted more pixels on my screen than I’ve had wanks (and I’ve an old dab hand). You’re more full of shit than the portaloos at a curry convention. Go and socially engineer yourself a brain and send it out to find the one you’ve got that went missing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Reid (16,442 comments) says:

    you’re an unmitigated contumelious fuckwit

    I prefer to view myself as a marriage hero cs and I fully expect someone in 2050 will kick Seddon out from the Botanic Gardens and erect a heroic statue of me, pointing to the sky as in told you so and standing on some stupid symbolic lefty’s head as he or she writhes in agonised defeat.

    You’ve blustered and blathered and bullied for weeks on end about “social engineering” when you have no idea whatsoever what that is.

    Au contrare cs but let’s not take my word for it, why don’t you pray explain what it’s all about? Surely you can?

    You’ve bullshitted and big-noted like an unwanted drunk at a party (“wights” and “discwimination” – OMG that’s the cleverest funniest thing I’ve ever heard).

    I think the same thing cs and thanks for the compliment. I giggle to myself as well everytime I type it, it’s just so much more amusing than calling them lefty mentals all the time. That just gets a bit boring.

    You’ve wasted more pixels on my screen than I’ve had wanks (and I’ve an old dab hand).

    Really? Well since the Bible says it’s not a good idea to “spill your seed on the ground” cs I’m glad I’ve helped you move closer to God. Bless you.

    You’re more full of shit than the portaloos at a curry convention.

    Imagine if Key had said that to Metiria during Question Time the other day when she got all confused. What do you think Lockwood would have said?

    Go and socially engineer yourself a brain and send it out to find the one you’ve got that went missing.

    If your definition of social engineering comes back with that possibility on the table cs I’ll certainly consider it. It would be rather handy to have extra brains after all. I imagine lots of people think that, except lefties of course, on account of their overbearing arrogance that their current bwain is quite sufficient, thank you very much and so there.

    Aren’t they awful cs? I think lefties are the worst people in the whole world. I mean how any sentient being think otherwise? I bet even the whales actually really hate them, they’re so supercilious aren’t they. I mean really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Johnboy (16,496 comments) says:

    “contumelious” By Jove civil serpent! I think I will give Dr. Johnson a call straight away before he sees the printer! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    and society should use all its resources to attain these lofty heights?

    Actually kk, I thought the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill only pertained to marriage, not sporting participation. Nor, indeed, of procreation. Interesting interpretation you have of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Reid (16,442 comments) says:

    “contumelious” By Jove civil serpent! I think I will give Dr. Johnson a call straight away before he sees the printer!

    I suspect he’s a Gween no, Green no, Gween [apparently, according to cs, people find it amusing, even if it's contumelious], OK? Gween political adviser, Johnboy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. nasska (11,473 comments) says:

    Reid

    Before your state funeral & prior to your remains being born on a gun carriage through the mourning city could you give us some details of how you envisage this statue should look. Okay, we’ve got the bit where you point to the sky but should the leftie have his limbs arranged in any particular way in order to denote the vehicle of your death.

    I’m sure that a study of heraldry would produce some guidelines but I would hate to think that the socialist with knee bent could be interpreted as signifying that the cause of your death was a virulent social disease or hanging.

    I trust that you’ll give this matter your urgent attention lest your end be scheduled earlier than expected.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    bhudson – the promotion of that bill has centred on so-called notions of ‘equality’ and removal of ‘discrimination’. I’m just curious as to the bills supporters’ willingness to apply the same scrutiny to other obvious violations of human rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. civil serpent (23 comments) says:

    KK – why should they? Get your local MP to promote a private members bill called the “KK wants to play women’s sports bill” and see how you go.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Reid (16,442 comments) says:

    Before your state funeral & prior to your remains being born on a gun carriage through the mourning city could you give us some details of how you envisage this statue should look.

    nasska I would, but having consulted the extispicy, doing so would seem rather contumelious, right now. Perhaps later, when my gadhol has blossomed to full fruit, we could look at it again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,570 comments) says:

    Hilarious. The christian taliban as ever gracious in defeat. Social engineering has been reduced as we chip away at the religious structure forced upon us by the christians during their worldwide crusade against human nature.

    It’s never been a better time to be a free human. Except for Reid, Fletchy and Redbaiter Sue. They will go to their church on a Sunday and have a good old cry about it. It warms my heart.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    It’s never been a better time to be a free human. Except for Reid, Fletchy and Redbaiter Sue. They will go to their church on a Sunday and have a good old cry about it. It warms my heart.

    Being free allows you to feel ‘warm in your heart’ at someone’s distress?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Johnboy (16,496 comments) says:

    No. Being “liberal minded” allows you to gloat at others distress kk! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Reid (16,442 comments) says:

    Being free allows you to feel ‘warm in your hear’ at someone distress?

    Just to clarify kk, personally I’ve no distress. Merely a deep, enduring sadness at the vast, vast number of braying donkeys out there who believe it’s a victowy for human wights!

    I mean if the braying donkeys make a move like this when the truth is so very evident for all who care to look, imagine what’s going to happen when something more serious and imminent comes along, like a war with Iran? That’s the sadness. I mean if the donkeys can’t even see a simple thing like gay mawwiaige social engineewing, how the fuck are the idiots ever going to detect something ten times more imminent, when rapid, clear thinking on a fast-moving picture is incumbent on all?

    No. Being “liberal minded” allows you to gloat at others distress kk!

    Yes I knew you’d enjoy that Johnboy, you gloater you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Griff (7,679 comments) says:

    Cs 100 points for impressive insulting with menacing. With that turn of praise you will go far
    have you meet Redsue? you and him will get on like two large junks of plutonium-239

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Fletch (6,367 comments) says:

    These proponents of same-sex marriage seem to have no idea of the havoc they are wreaking on society – they seem to be incapable of any forward looking into the future. Their narrow focus is on the here and now without any inkling of future consequences. They will find out in the future, when relationships bear more resemblance to those in Huxley’s Brave New World than they do today, but by then it will be too late.

    Here’s part of a synopsis of Brave New World –

    the World State is able to ‘form’ the people, so that things like free-thought and the fear of death don’t exist. Also sexual and reproductive habits are formed in this education. For example, the children play erotic games in the hatchery and conditioning centre. For them it is normal that children do such things and have fun doing them.
    When the people are older, sex becomes an act of release, an outlet, a form of entertainment, and is no longer a means of procreation. Promiscuity is celebrated in different ways. In the Feelies and in ceremonies they use sex to make people happy. So you can say that there is no longer a real relationship between sex and love, or sex and any kind of deep emotion. In relation to the World State in general, Huxley has removed any kind of relationship. A real relationship no longer consists of two people; it has become a big group. This could be seen as an appeal to our society, that something in our world is going wrong and that we shouldn’t forget romantic relationships and emotions in our life.

    If you haven’t already, now is a good time to read the novel.
    In our society, too, sex and love are beginning to be divorced from one another – as is sex and procreation.
    Sex is becoming a meaningless Friday night pleasure, like the temporary high of a beer or a cigarette.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Ryan Sproull (7,115 comments) says:

    While you’re at it, please read Huxley’s “The Doors of Perception” for some insight into why hallucinogenic drugs should be both legal and recommended for genuine religious experiences.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Griff (7,679 comments) says:

    Looks like fletch will be checking his rapture pack along with the rest of the f undies. better add a sphincter protector to those rapture packs godsquad it may be a long apocalypse

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Reid (16,442 comments) says:

    While you’re at it, please read Huxley’s “The Doors of Perception” for some insight into why hallucinogenic drugs should be both legal and recommended for genuine religious experiences.

    and

    Looks like fletch will be checking his rapture pack along with the rest of the f undies. better add a sphincter protector to those rapture packs godsquad it may be a long apocalypse

    Sigh.

    Yet more useful idiocy disingenuous propaganda that the only possible reason for objecting to the destruction of the family unit gay marriage is religion. When will you ever learn? When will you ever learn…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,570 comments) says:

    Ah yes, some reading comprehension wouldn’t go amiss! I said watching you wailing away at Church would warm my heart. It is only helped further by the absurdity from Fletchy who has said a few gays getting married will wreck society. I am pretty sure you should be focusing your obsession with sex on the promiscuous teens rather than adults. What about adults who marry but don’t want children? Are they in your basket of sin as well? What’s wrong with a quickie on a Friday night?

    Can somebody get these fundies out of my bedroom?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. cha (4,010 comments) says:

    Aldous Huxley’s dying request: “LSD, 100 µg, intramuscular”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Manolo (13,746 comments) says:

    A fitting headline: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/nzs-key-excited-about-gay-marriage-vote/story-e6frfkui-1226461326808

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    In our society, too, sex and love are beginning to be divorced from one another – as is sex and procreation.

    How very funny. Sex and love and sex and procreation have been “divorced” (no pun intended) since the beginning of civilisation.

    That however doesn’t mean either that they need to be exclusive of each other.

    And there is absolute nothing wrong with that, with, of course, exception of some ultra-prudish, self-loathing, ultra-religious conservatives, who just love to condemn and deny humanity anything that makes them human.

    But to say “are beginning” and “in our society” is just a testament of how far removed from reality you are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Ryan Sproull (7,115 comments) says:

    Yet more disingenuous propaganda that the only possible reason for objecting to gay marriage is religion. When will you ever learn? When will you ever learn…

    That’s not what I said, Reid.

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

    “How many people woke to find that their marriage had fallen apart because this bill had passed it’s first reading? How many people woke to find that their families have been devastated?

    One has to wonder just how stupid the religious bigots feel this morning.”

    And who many people actually argued that passing the Bill in the first reading would make there marriage fall apart or that there families would be devasted within 24 hours?

    When liberals actually engage the arguments people have made instead of caricaturing them and calling people names let me know. For example a (a) cogent informed critique of the theology of marriage under girding the current law, (b)would some argument that the state has on obligation to soleminise same sex unions ( or any union for that matter) and (c) some coherent defensible alternative conception of marriage which can replace the traditional one.

    Calling people bigots is never a subsitute for serious intellectual work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Well, Matt I agree with you on the “bigot” part. Calling names is certainly not an argument. But those are not the only labels being thrown around. You don’t seem to mind labels like “idiots” and “cultural marxist” being thrown in by the opponents.

    There were plentiful of arguments for gay marriage here and arguments refuting the oppositions counter-arguments, quite coherently I may add. A lot of the counter-arguments against gay marriage were neither cogent, informed or logically consistent.

    I had to laugh on your point “theology of marriage”, talk about framing the discussion. Marriage is not am exclusively religious institution, despite you wishing to frame it that way. You may want to debate “theology of marriage” (or mental masturbation as I call it) with yourself, but this has no place in a public discourse.

    The best point was brought up in the debate by Paul Hutchinson (I believe) where he referred to the german model. Their you have a “civil marriage” preformed by the the state and a “church marriage” (if you wish). Both are referred to as marriage.

    But really, with this bill, we are pretty much going to get that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. My View (1 comment) says:

    Before this debate I was leaning more towards the opinion that we didn’t need to change the law to allow Gay Marriage, as I thought Civil Union’s covered the human rights of Gay people, except for adoption, which could be instead by achieved by changing the adoption law, rather than the definition of marriage. I didn’t really understand why such a big fuss needed to be made, to define the meaning of marriage, especially since doing so would upset a lot of people.

    After looking at the reasons for and against the defining marriage as between two people, rather than between a man and a woman, I am now leaning more towards changing the definition, as it does seem to discriminate against Gay people, but I have a little bit of a dilemma with this. The arguments for allowing Gay Marriage can also be used for allowing Polygamous, Incestuous and group Marriage, but these things are illegal and I’m not sure why? (Bestiality, Pedophilia and Marrying inanimate objects have also been brought up, but these are easily dismissed as a stupid argument, as there is no mutual consent between adults)

    The argument for Incestuous Marriage seems to me to be the strongest, so I’d like to hear from someone who strongly supports Gay Marriage, but does not support Incestuous Marriage (No I’m not trolling, I actually want to know).
    Incest has been brought up by people opposed to Gay Marriage, but I have yet to see an argument against why it should not be allowed, if anything it should be even more acceptable. For those from a Christian standpoint you should remember the Church has a history of marrying closely related people. The only real argument I have seen against Incest, is that it can increase birth defects in offspring, but I don’t see how this is a reason not to allow it, as we don’t ban people with genetic disabilities from marrying for this reason. It’s only an increase, not a guarantee and the couple can just choose not to have kids, or, like Gay couples, they can adopt, or use donors. Also Incestuous couples don’t have to be straight, they could be Gay and therefore won’t be reproducing their own children anyway. There has also been comments saying that there would be very few people who would want an Incestuous Marriage, but would we really say no to people’s right to happiness because they are a minority? It can’t be called unnatural, as incest happens a lot in nature and again for Christians who do you think Adam and Eve’s kids procreated with? Family first should be ok with it (when it comes to a related man and woman), as they only want marriage to be between a man and a woman. It is currently seen as wrong by our society, but so did Homosexuality and that changed because of human rights. It would even be ok under the new bill allowing for defining the meaning of marriage as between two people, it doesn’t specify they can’t be related. So what do you think?…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,570 comments) says:

    But Matthew, you will still be married when this law passes. So all this “serious intellectual work” that you are on about is moot.
    Life will go on. Everything you have said will not happen. Just as well you’re not a fortune teller, if you believed in them.

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

    oh what a joke you are ESZETT.

    you are one of those matthew is talking about, slag off people and paint them with labeling words to marginalise them.
    engage with people .
    you are such a hypocrite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    How ironic, 2 cents. And hypocritical

    Is this post of yours what you call “engaging with people?”
    Do you have any specific examples or do you just want to slag me off and label me as a “joke” in an feeble attempt to marginalise me.

    I am afraid the jokes on you.

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