PM on Euthanasia

August 23rd, 2012 at 8:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Prime Minister says already happens in our hospitals – and if he was terminally ill, he would consider it.

Doctors disagreed with him last night, saying his view of the situation was too simplistic.

We definitely have passive euthanasia – it is quite common. Active euthanasia, would be very rare, but I suspect there are cases where the drug dosage is increased with a quicker end in mind.

Mr Key said yesterday that he could understand the argument that legalising euthanasia might put pressure on the elderly to end their lives early, in the face of “rapacious grandkids”, but “I don’t really buy that argument”.

“I think there’s a lot of euthanasia that effectively happens in our hospitals,” he told Newstalk ZB.

“. . . If I had terminal cancer, I had a few weeks to live, I was in tremendous amount of pain – if they just effectively wanted to turn off the switch and legalise that by legalising euthanasia, I’d want that.”

As would many people, who are denied the choice.

Of course with euthanasia, there is a risk of abuse. Just as with fracking there is a samll risk of small earthquakes and with our criminal justice system there is a risk of innocent people going to jail.

These are all reasons to minimise risk, and have strong safeguards in place. They are not reasons to not allow people to decide to die if in pain and suffering.

Also yesterday, Mr Key revealed that his views on gay marriage had changed, largely in response to having children.

He has stated his support for a bill legalising gay marriage, but said: “If you asked me questions on same-sex marriage 20 or 30 years ago, I might have taken a different view.

“But the way I look at the world now is I look at our own kids and my No 1 priority for our children is to be happy, healthy and safe.

“I don’t think they are gay, but if they came along and said they were, I wouldn’t love them any less.”

A great attitude.

I recently met a mum whose five year old may turn out to be gay or trans-gender. He loves to wear dresses, put on jewelry etc and complains why isn’t he a girl. Now it may just be a fad or a phase, or it may be that he is “wired” that way. I asked the mum (and she is straight, and the dad is straight) if they tried to discourage him, as he may end up with a lot of teasing through his childhood if he continues to dress up as a girl etc and she said that they never ever want him to think there is something “wrong” with him. They just absolutely love him to pieces for who he is, and will just support and love him regardless of where it leads. I thought it was such a cool attitude.

The son is pretty precocious also. As a five year old when he discovered there were no costumes at school, he went along to see the principal to lobby for the school to buy some costumes for dress up.

Tags: , ,

120 Responses to “PM on Euthanasia”

  1. nasska (12,095 comments) says:

    With a smorgasbord of free choice issues such as these on offer God’s little helpers will be at risk of burnout. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. David in Chch (523 comments) says:

    Haha. nasska, when I saw there was 1 comment, I thought that they already had started! ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. barry (1,191 comments) says:

    Well I hope the school principal advised the 5 year old that the childs job at school was to learn to read and write and that costumes could be found later on over at the art school at university.

    Jeez – whats the world coming to………..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Euthanasia has been legal in other jurisdictions for some years now. Rather than mere speculation based on a priori reasoning – what’s the experience of those jurisdictions?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Andrei (2,653 comments) says:

    The son is pretty precocious also. As a five year old when he discovered there were no costumes at school, he went along to see the principal to lobby for the school to buy some costumes for dress up.

    Urban Liberals producing messed up children – quelle surprise

    They should take him down to the local rugby club and sign him up for Saturday Morning Rugby.

    Mind you for urban liberals having a gender bending five year old is far more chic than a kid who wears the number eight jersey in the under six fifteen ever would be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. kowtow (8,938 comments) says:

    John Keys’ view of the situation too simplistic…….pretty good all round summary.

    nasska and co,you lot are just as bad.Simply the other side of the coin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. hmmokrightitis (1,596 comments) says:

    Im sure someone will come along soon enough and tell us the 5 year old has obviously been molested…

    My now 10 year old used to do exactly the same. And push dolls around in a pram. Gave it up when he was 5, with nothing from Mum or Dad to encourage or discourage. Let kids be kids FFS.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Brian Smaller (3,966 comments) says:

    Mind you for urban liberals having a gender bending five year old is far more chic than a kid who wears the number eight jersey in the under six fifteen ever would be.

    They play Ripper Rugby at that age.

    Euthanasia : In our hospitals now they call it Do Not Resuscitate. My father is now in Australia where he had a serious repeat of a heart condition that the Tauranga hospital doctors had convinced him was untreatable and that there was nothing medical they could do for him – hence he signed a DNR. In Australia they gave him a pacemaker and he is still alive and kicking three years on from that incident.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Andrei (2,653 comments) says:

    They play Ripper Rugby at that age

    Yes Brian I know sigh. It is a nice de-tuned form of the game especially suited for girls to play.

    Heaven forbid our young indulge in rough and tumble contact sport – they might get hurt!!!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. jims_whare (408 comments) says:

    I’d say he got the idea from watching dad play dressup…………

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Scott (1,807 comments) says:

    I used to defend John Key. I even used to vote for him. I thought he is a lot better than Helen Clark. At least we won’t get all the social engineering that is anathema to me. At least he will get on with the important stuff. Like doing something about the economy. Like supporting business. Like getting people back to work. Like just governing the country in a sensible fashion.

    But how wrong I was!? Here we have Labour still running the country and setting the agenda. We have the same-sex marriage bill being introduced. By Louisa Wall, MP, Labour and lesbian. And John Key, our Prime Minister, is okay with that. That’s got to be one for the Labor Party rainbow agenda.

    And here we have it again. Euthanasia bill being introduced by Maryann Street, MP, Labour and another lesbian. But hey, John Key is okay with that too. He supports euthanasia we are now told.

    Why bother to get elected when all you are going to do is continue to support the opposition and its most contentious policies? Like if John Key had said prior to the last election – I am going to support same-sex marriage and the introduction of euthanasia. How do you think he would have got on? I think he would still be in opposition. I think he deserves to be in opposition. Because basically he supports the radical social engineering agenda of the opposition.

    Why did he bother to run as a National Prime Minister again? And remind me why we bothered to vote for him?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Rick Rowling (816 comments) says:

    Euthanasia, fracking, gay marriage, schools and child-rearing all in one post. One epic thread coming up.

    Going to have to slip in something about climate change, atheism and unions in here somewhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Chuck Bird (4,896 comments) says:

    “Why did he bother to run as a National Prime Minister again? And remind me why we bothered to vote for him?”

    Colin Craig is not perfect like John Key thinks he is but he will get my vote. If he for some reason does not stand Winston would get my vote. I never thought I would say this.

    We elect a government to run the country not make all sort of moral decisions for us. If we have a National led government it will probably be with the Conservative Party and NZF.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Salacious Crumb (31 comments) says:

    Scott/Chuck Bird,

    So here we have a thread about a pretty serious issue that does actually effect a lot of people and your response “I’m not going to vote for….”

    Egocentric much?

    How about intelligent discourse on how you would cope with seeing a loved one suffer unindurable agony and beg for a release.

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

    But that’s fine Chuck, they clearly need someone to keep them on task.
    I’ll believe it when WFF is scrapped and tax cuts replace it.
    Similarly when the Maori seats are scrapped and all laws that benefit any one race over other Kiwis are scrapped or rewritten too.

    Sadness is what it says about us as a people!

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

    salacious

    why? , it won’t be intelligent as nassaka and dime and all the fruit loops will just slag off anyone who doesn’t agree with them and the people of faith who put forward their position.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. nasska (12,095 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird

    John Key is doing exactly what he should be doing. Running the country & staying the Hell out of bedrooms, churches & moral judgements. The government is elected to run the bloody country….not tell us who we should be up or how we should die.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Andrei (2,653 comments) says:

    John Key is doing exactly what he should be doing. Running the country & staying the Hell out of bedrooms, churches & moral judgements. The government is elected to run the bloody country….not tell us who we should be up or how we should die.

    ROFLAMAO

    Anti- smacking, we are being told how to raise out kids

    Smoking – whole raft of legislation to whack the smokers

    Drinking – not allowed to buy cheap plonk at the supermarket

    etc etc etc

    This is the most morally judgmental government in history but the morals they are imposing are those of the secular elites, that all

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

    What a fucking idiot. So basically if he didn’t have kids, he’d still be homophobic. So basically 20 or 30 years ago, when he was at university, he didn’t have the common sense to come to the conclusion himself that being anti-gay was discriminatory. As much as I disagree with Left-wing politics, at least people like Helen Clark were smart enough to see that the anti-gay attitude as shared by Christians is what is wrong with the world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Scott (1,807 comments) says:

    Nasska- Well I hate to disagree with you. But I would say exactly the opposite. For millennia here in the West we have not killed granny. We have allowed granny to die of natural causes. Now John Key wants the government to change the law so that killing granny is not murder. As long as granny asks for it – then it is fine to blow granny’s head off with a shotgun. Well presumably they will do it in a more gentle way. But the effect, the death of granny, is the same.

    Since the beginning of time marriage has been between a man and a woman. Now John Key and his friends over in labour want to redefine marriage by government fiat. They will make marriage what they say it is.

    So these are massive government interventions. The government will decree who we can marry and will redefine marriage to be what it says it is. The government will also allow a certain group of citizens to be murdered or be assisted to kill themselves. So government is now redefining marriage and deciding who lives and who dies. I think that is a massive increase in state power. Don’t you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. East Wellington Superhero (1,139 comments) says:

    Has DPF just jumped the shark?

    A media article about euthanasia turns into a gush about a 5 year-old that could turn out to be gay one day. WTF?

    Also, as well as one again showcasing DPF’s obsession with everything gay, I find the discussion of the sexuality of a 5-year old bordering on creepy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. nasska (12,095 comments) says:

    Scott

    So tradition dictates that Granny should die of natural causes. No one to date has advocated that death squads will be sent into the suburbs to hunt down grannies. We are debating a change of law that will allow a person to make their own decisions….you may have another name for it but I call it free choice.

    Marriage is a word…..nothing more & nothing less. A change will not effect the strength or weakness of others’ vows as that comes from within the individual. In any case the churches lost the argument, not today or tomorrow but 300 odd years back when they ceded marriage registration & legislation to the state.

    The church is for groups of individuals….they have an opt out clause but once the state is involved in any endeavour it must treat all citizens equally.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    East Wellington Superhero,

    It doesn’t just border on being creepy, it is undoubtedly creepy to publicly speculate as to whether a specific pre-pubescent child will turn out to be a homosexual.

    It was bad enough when Whale Oil became the Gay Marriage blog of New Zealand – but why has DPF become so consumed with the topic of homosexuality lately? Why is he so fascinated with the subject?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    it’s only a matter of time – a grand liberal coalition looms. What’s the difference between National and labour again? Personally I’m for same sex but agin aborting Grandparents at this point in history.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Shunda barunda (2,986 comments) says:

    Whatever reduces baby boomers the quickest! :)

    You lot have turned this country into a f@cking mess, so fine, go kill yourselves with gay abandon……..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Shunda barunda (2,986 comments) says:

    It was bad enough when Whale Oil became the Gay Marriage blog of New Zealand – but why has DPF become so consumed with the topic of homosexuality lately? Why is he so fascinated with the subject?

    They have a quota to meet, and they are doing all that and more.

    True conservatives don’t exist in a political context in NZ.

    It wouldn’t surprise me one iota if they actually discussed a strategy to influence the vote as much as possible to impress their gay friends.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Manolo (14,169 comments) says:

    Go DPF, go! :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Pete George (23,798 comments) says:

    why has DPF become so consumed with the topic of homosexuality lately? Why is he so fascinated with the subject?

    Who comments on the threads? Seems like his isn’t the only fascination.

    Some people just think marriage equality is something who’s time has come. The dark ages were a while ago now

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Shunda barunda (2,986 comments) says:

    By the way, DPF says he’s not gay (and I believe him) but did you realise we can turn him gay? He made the mistake of telling us all about a ‘price on his bottom’, so all we have to do is start a bit of fundraising :)

    So how a bot it folks? will you contribute to the “turn DPF gay” fundraiser? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. nasska (12,095 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda

    …”You lot have turned this country into a f@cking mess, so fine, go kill yourselves with gay abandon……..”….

    I’ll put you down as a “yes” then? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Pete George (23,798 comments) says:

    The time for a careful degree of officialised euthanasia could be nearly here too. 21st century civilised world with dramatic changes in medical care.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Pete George (23,798 comments) says:

    Shunda at 9.51 am – you’re confusing sexuality with prostitution.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. TheContrarian (1,094 comments) says:

    @Chuck Bird
    “We elect a government to run the country not make all sort of moral decisions for us.”

    So the government making a moral decision not to legalise gay marriage is the government not making moral decisions for us?
    Interesting…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    I believe I speak for many here when I say….Andrei, Shunda,Scott,Chuck et…..just fuck off back to the stone age you insecure hate filled ghost fearing squirly men……the past called….they want their dinosaurs back.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Lance (2,713 comments) says:

    So how does this impact the Hippocratic oath?

    Maybe we train up a load of non-oath taken med techs that can do the deed on behalf of the distressed individual?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Pete George – as to your observation as to the Dark Ages being a while ago now, I question it’s relevance to the homosexual marriage debate. After all, for thousands of years before and after the Dark Ages – and in all cultures outside the European peninsula – marriage has been defined in conjugal terms. Even those cultures that exalted homosexual relationships recognised that there weren’t the same thing as marriage (and there were actually quite a lot of those).

    I know that for social liberals, history began the day they were born but a frank examination of history should unburden them of their pompousness somewhat.

    Any, there may be a third explanation for DPF’s fascination with the homosexuality of children – that he has become an internet troll. Unprovable, of course, but his daily antagonisms towards tradition people who would otherwise support him do tend to generate quite a few comments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    Andrei (1,410) Says:
    August 23rd, 2012 at 8:25 am

    Mind you for urban liberals having a gender bending five year old is far more chic than a kid who wears the number eight jersey in the under six fifteen ever would be.

    You really are just a complete fucken tool, aren’t you Andrei?

    The national homo-erotic religion of playing rugby is fine, but heaven forbid that schools show kids anything to do with theatre or creativity. Somehow that’s just wrong.

    In arbitrarily picking and choosing its rights and wrongs, (and then spouting BS about them ad nauseam) the hypocrisy of the conservative really doesn’t know any bounds, does it?

    GET IN BEHIND!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. kowtow (8,938 comments) says:

    scott @849

    Agree completly with you.

    Add the tobacco and booze wowserism from this ,led by the nose, cabinet, to your list.

    The same sex thing is govt getting involved where it shouldn’t and making new laws and definitions.In the past govt recognised marriage,now it is legislating it.

    Human rights and equality gone mad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Chuck Bird (4,896 comments) says:

    You must be pretty insecure to use a pseudonym James.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Scott (1,807 comments) says:

    The Scorned (333) Says: August 23rd, 2012 at 10:00 am “I believe I speak for many here when I say….Andrei, Shunda,Scott,Chuck et…..just fuck off back to the stone age you insecure hate filled ghost fearing squirly men……the past called….they want their dinosaurs back.”

    RRM (5,217) Says:August 23rd, 2012 at 10:03 am “You really are just a complete fucken tool, aren’t you Andrei?”

    Thank you gentlemen – you prove my case. I have always believed that the atheists, the enlightened people, are the ones that start hurling abuse. On this thread here is the proof, once again. Personal attacks, personal abuse, directed at somebody personally. By the atheists.

    If you guys are going to debate how about civility? You guys are in danger of giving atheists a bad name.

    That’s the difficulty when you don’t believe in God. You don’t feel that you are responsible to anyone for your actions. If you believe that God was watching you, you might restrain yourselves. You might argue the point rather than abuse the man. Just something for you to consider.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. PaulL (5,449 comments) says:

    The son is pretty precocious also. As a five year old when he discovered there were no costumes at school, he went along to see the principal to lobby for the school to buy some costumes for dress up.

    Sounds like a budding socialist to me. A budding capitalist would have organised a fund raiser.

    I reckon John Key’s pretty bang on here. And seeing as he agrees with me, I reckon he’s probably agreeing with most NZers, knowing as I do that everyone else thinks like me. No idea about the other crazies on here who think all NZers think like them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. David in Chch (523 comments) says:

    Rick Rowling (561) Says:
    August 23rd, 2012 at 8:56 am

    “Euthanasia, fracking, gay marriage, schools and child-rearing all in one post. One epic thread coming up.

    “Going to have to slip in something about climate change, atheism and unions in here somewhere.”

    And let’s not forget the (incorrect and irrelevant) mention of Nazis and Hitler whenever the topic of euthanasia (and homosexuality and so on) arises. Can we invoke Godwin’s Law yet? Can we? Please?
    ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. wf (482 comments) says:

    Some of you people (in fact most of you – too numerous to mention) are simply tragic.

    I understand it is easier to make jokes when you are afraid of your own inevitable death. It is easier to deflect the necessity for thinking about something scary and uncontrollable – so lets have a cheap laugh!

    What John Key was talking about: he would like to be spared an undignified death if he found himself terminally ill. He would like to die pain-free and in peace. His family would like that too, I’m sure.

    That is NOT euthanasia.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Brian Smaller (3,966 comments) says:

    Jimmy Smits

    anti-gay attitude as shared by Christians is what is wrong with the world.

    A billion Muslims would take issue with that. You are a fuckwit. More religions than just Christianity are anti-gay – But just remind me again – which ‘christian’ countries in 2012 are hanging homosexuals from porta-cranes on street corners?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    You are quite right Scott. Civility.

    http://www.quid-deinde.falfn.com/page.php?post=P_1340326490

    ^^^ Andrei – can you please explain why – in the above link – you celebrate that family’s freedom to ride in their bike & sidecar without helmets, yet here on Kiwiblog you aren’t interested in allowing a child the freedom to dress differently, or a terminally ill person the freedom to escape from their suffering, or a couple of gays the freedom to enjoy the same legal marriage recognition as anyone else?

    (I suspect you won’t explain it, and if you respond at all you will bluster something about how, if I can’t see what the difference is then I’m too far gone, and it’s not worth your time, because it should be obvious to any right-thinking person. So obvious, in fact, that no-one can quite explain it.)

    It appears you want to pick and choose who enjoys what freedom, and you believe your creator superstition gives you some moral authority to do so. Reading Kiwiblog I’m constantly being reminded that no-one’s further left than the extreme right :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Brian Smaller (3,966 comments) says:

    The national homo-erotic religion of playing rugby is fine, but heaven forbid that schools show kids anything to do with theatre or creativity. Somehow that’s just wrong.

    Depends on what school you go to. My kids have been at private schools their entire time at school so far and they play rugby, hockey and do House singing, House Shakespeare and so forth. Arts and sports and academic excellence – what makes a well rounded individual.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Andrei (2,653 comments) says:

    Andrei – can you please explain why – in the above link – you celebrate that family’s freedom to ride in their bike & sidecar without helmets, yet here on Kiwiblog you aren’t interested in allowing a child the freedom to dress differently, or a terminally ill person freedom to escape from their suffering, or a couple of gays the freedom to enjoy the same legal marriage recognition as anyone else?

    RRM – I am not stopping anybody from dressing their little boy as a girl, they a free to do so, just as I am am free to say I think that it will not result in a good outcome for that child.

    Suffering of course is part of the human condition, the only way to end all human suffering is for the human race to commit mass suicide and go extinct. The animals of course who remain will continue to suffer as they eat each other and so forth.

    Gays of course actually have “the freedom to enjoy the same legal marriage recognition as anyone else” by conforming to the rules of marriage that apply to everyone else that being the identifying of a eligible opposite sex person willing to join with them in the institution of marriage

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Pete George (23,798 comments) says:

    The national homo-erotic religion of playing rugby is fine, but heaven forbid that schools show kids anything to do with theatre or creativity.

    There was an excellent item on (I think) 60 minutes last SUnday about a principle of a Palmerston North School. He said in singl;e sex schools boys were more likely to participate in things like singing and drama because the distraction of having to try and appear macho in front of girls wasn’t there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. UpandComer (537 comments) says:

    I was in singing and drama and debating and all the rest of it. I was also in the senior basketball team in 5th form and played rugby up to U 15’s, at an all boys school. Played classical music on piano and guitar too. There is no reason to think a kid is gay if he has an older sister who dresses him up etc. Those guys often score more chicks later because they are comfortable and feminine.

    As for Euthanasia, I am very disappointed John has said this. We do have it already, so why legalise something we don’t need. Come on John, please, enough with the social engineering policies. Gay marriage, doesn’t fit my definition of marriage, but fine.

    But euthanasia, no way mate. not happy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. slightlyrighty (2,097 comments) says:

    With regard to the hippocratic oath, and how it relates to this situation. There have been many medical advances over the last 100 years, starting with the development of antibiotics, and further treatments that include insulin for diabetes in 1921, open heart surgery, joint replacement, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, dialysis and transplant surgery. We can now prolong life to an extent and in ways we could only dream of 100 years ago.

    30 years ago, an HIV diagnosis was a death sentence in the western world, it is now regarded as a manageable chronic condition. Prolonging life is now the default position of the medical establishment. However, as I understand it, the first principle of the hippocratic oath is “First, do no harm”. I am sure that many doctors would consider the prolonging of a life to be of no benefit to a patient. Maladies of old age that were left to take their course 100 years ago are now quite often treated, and while many who are so treated make a full recovery and continue to lead fulfilling lives, there are some where doctors must wonder if it were better to just let the patient leave this world peacefully.

    If it were left up to doctors to apply a moral judgement in these situations, the result would be a disaster. However, the idea of a living will, or an enshrined patients right to not prolong medical suffering and to make a reasoned end of life choice should be examined. I do not believe a Doctor should be able to make the decision to end a patients life, nor should a doctor prolong that life against a patients will in a terminal illness situation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. kowtow (8,938 comments) says:

    pg

    That show was quite funny,locker room huddle,American style rarara re.Tough guy haka war dance at start. Lose the game….. fucken public blub! Pathetic.

    Boys in mixed schools do all that arty stuff too.

    THe tough guy machismo in our young men has become perversly dangerous and verges on the extreme. It seems misplaced as our young men now ape negro gaol culture and associated activities.Big problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    Andrei,

    Gays of course actually have “the freedom to enjoy the same legal marriage recognition as anyone else” by conforming to the rules of marriage that apply to everyone else that being the identifying of a eligible opposite sex person willing to join with them in the institution of marriage

    Specious reasoning. If there were a law against marrying someone of a different religion that would constitute discrimination against interfaith couples. It is a red herring to point out that, like everyone else, they are able to marry someone of the same religion. The class of people being discriminated against would be interfaith couples (as it is gay couples in this instance). The fact that people belong to this class by choice does not negate the fact that discrimination is occurring.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Weihana,

    Logically incorrect – I refer you to the Court of Appeal in the Quilter case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. eszett (2,450 comments) says:

    Blacks of course actually have “the freedom to enjoy the same legal marriage recognition as anyone else” by conforming to the rules of marriage that apply to everyone else that being the identifying of a eligible same race person willing to join with them in the institution of marriage

    And as I pointed out to you before, Andrei, that was also the exact same reasoning people like you used against inter-racial marriage.

    The argument was just as silly and disingenuous then as it is now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Andrei (2,653 comments) says:

    The argument was just as silly and disingenuous then as it is now.

    Ahem Inter racial marriage has never been illegal in New Zealand and I most certainly have never argued that it should be and nor has anyone else as far as I know.

    It is your argument that is silly and disingenuous.

    Your argument is in fact absurd and ridiculous

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    eszett – also philosophically illogical and historically incorrect. Citing anti-miscegenation laws might make you feel self-righteous, but if you have a simple look at the history of those laws, you would soon see that it is an inapt comparison.

    Most damningly, there has never been a common law ban on interracial mariage – as such marriages have always been considered to be a natural law liberty. Anti-miscegenation laws, which were very recent in origin, attempted to eradicate the legal status of genuine marriages use of a statutory condition that had no precedent in the common law and was clearly intended to advance the newly ascendant and fashionable idea of racism.

    Moreover, because anti-miscegenation laws were statutory interventions against traditional marriage, they recognised a priori that inter-racial marriages were by default valid. It was a statutory intervention against the natural law – which is what is proposed by gay marriage advocates today.

    As one libertatian scholar put it: “[M]arriage between men and women is a pre-political, naturally emerging social institution. Men and women come together to create children, independently of any government … By contrast… same-sex ‘marriage’ is completely a creation of the state.”

    That’s not to say it’s wrong. There may be good policy arguments for gay marriage – but nobody ever really puts them across because they’re always way too busy being smug about an anti-miscegenation analogy that doesn’t stack up logically.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. KevinH (1,257 comments) says:

    @east
    If we are to examine the freudian implications of DPF bracketing euthanasia with crossdressing then the conclusion would be that DPF wants gays to drop dead.!!
    No offence intended DPF.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. East Wellington Superhero (1,139 comments) says:

    At the root of anti-miscegenation laws was the idea that African-Americans were different (inferior) in their humanity when compared to others. This is very different to exclusivity of heterosexual marriage. A gay man has the same humanity as any other human being. However, that same man cannot make a baby with another man. I concede that I’m using the concept of heterosexual reproduction as a validator of normality, though my point here is not to argue against SSM but to suggest that the analogy between Black Civil Rights and Same-Sex Marriage Rights is not valid.

    Though it is a convenient analogy in a debate that is without depth and largely devoid of reason by both the media and NZ’s ‘academics’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. eszett (2,450 comments) says:

    @andrei, not at all. As I have pointed out, replace gay with race in your argument and it shows how absurd and ridiculous your argument is.

    @cato, nice try to white wash the religiously supported racism. It was religiously conservatives that tried to prevent inter-racial marriage and they also argued the same way as they do today. There is no definition of marriage in natural law, that is something that you are making up. Marriage is a social construct, no matter how often you try to bring tie it to this nonsense of “natural law”

    There is nothing smug about the analogy. In fact what I am trying to point out is how absurd, idiotic and hurtful it is what Andrei construes as argument, because that argument has been used before, by the same sort of people and to the same effect.

    Anyway, this is supposed to be a thread about euthanasia and turned more into gay marriage. I am sure that this argument will pop up again and again by Andrei in the multiple threads that are to come once the three readings are on their way.

    @EWS the analogy is valid if you are using the same arguments

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Scott (1,807 comments) says:

    “As one libertatian scholar put it: “[M]arriage between men and women is a pre-political, naturally emerging social institution. Men and women come together to create children, independently of any government … By contrast… same-sex ‘marriage’ is completely a creation of the state.” ”

    Thanks Cato for that great quote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. East Wellington Superhero (1,139 comments) says:

    It’s all above love dude. Whatever ‘love’ is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    Cato (89) Says:
    August 23rd, 2012 at 11:33 am

    Weihana,

    Logically incorrect – I refer you to the Court of Appeal in the Quilter case.

    Your understanding appears mistaken. The court is quite able to acknowledge a difference in impact a rule can have which may be regarded as discrimination. The court did conclude there was a difference in impact on homosexual couples, but that there was no way to interpret the Marriage Act as permitting same sex couples to marry. They found it was for Parliament to end such discrimination if they wished to, not the courts.

    Discrimination is only illegal if Parliament does not intend it. Parliament intended the Marriage Act to apply only to opposite sex couples.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Eszett – you seem incapable of grasping the essential point that yes, anti-miscegenation laws were wrong and hateful, but they were fundamentally different instruments than opposition to same-sex marriage. They were state interventions against immemorial rights and liberties – which had existed for thousands and thousands of years. What the NZ centre-right (as exemplified by DPF) is incapable of understanding is that that’s a completely different thing to positively intervening to change the character of that immemorial instution to suit a favoured group of people who have never, ever, anywhere been considered a party to it.

    I can only surmise that such is the analytical skills of the well-fed right are so atrophied because they have been so parasitically living off the government for so long that they no longer recognise cultural Marxism for what it is.

    Make your policy arguments if you will – but ditch these sanctimonious appeals to emotion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Weihana,

    I should have been more specific in referring you to Justice Keith’s tightly reasoned judgment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Shunda barunda (2,986 comments) says:

    I believe I speak for many here when I say….Andrei, Shunda,Scott,Chuck et…..just fuck off back to the stone age you insecure hate filled ghost fearing squirly men……the past called….they want their dinosaurs back.

    Oh be nice!!!!!!!

    You are just so fabulous you scorned little man!

    I don’t fear ghosts, I’ve seen ghostbusters :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    Mr Key revealed that his views on gay marriage had changed, largely in response to having children.

    This makes no sense. It’s a stupid thing to say.

    As it’s not a direct quote from Key, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and blame the useless writing, reporting (and probably thinking) of Michael Forbes. From the quotes, it looks as though Key’s view might be different from 20-30 years ago, but he doesn’t say that his wife popping out some babies is what changed things. He merely uses them as an example of how he’d be tolerant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. eszett (2,450 comments) says:

    Scott (1,033) Says:
    August 23rd, 2012 at 12:07 pm

    “As one libertatian scholar put it: “[M]arriage between men and women is a pre-political, naturally emerging social institution. Men and women come together to create children, independently of any government … By contrast… same-sex ‘marriage’ is completely a creation of the state.” ”

    Thanks Cato for that great quote.

    Yes, and complete bullshit to boot. Cato likes to put a lot fluff around his long sentences to make them sound profound and intellectual. They are neither.

    “pre-political?” What that does even mean?. It’s just nonsense.
    “naturally emerging social institution”? If it’s social institution (i.e. construct) how can it be naturally emerging? And why would the inclusion of homosexuals into the institution of marriage not just be equally naturally emerging?

    No, cato realises that marriage is a social construct and thereby subject to society and change, but tries to get around the problem by trying to attach some “objective norm” which would exclude homosexuals. (and fails miserably I might add).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Brian Smaller (3,966 comments) says:

    Mr Key revealed that his views on gay marriage had changed, largely in response to having children.

    This makes no sense. It’s a stupid thing to say.

    Why is that a stupid thing to say? Having children often changes the way people look at the world. It certainly did for me.

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

    Brian Smaller (3,684) Says:
    August 23rd, 2012 at 10:21 am

    Jimmy Smits

    A billion Muslims would take issue with that. You are a fuckwit. More religions than just Christianity are anti-gay – But just remind me again – which ‘christian’ countries in 2012 are hanging homosexuals from porta-cranes on street corners?

    My my, what would your pastor and congregation think about you using such language? Remind me again which God destroyed a whole city because of homosexuality? Sounds like a reasonable action to take. Are you going to kill your children too if they are gay?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    They were state interventions against immemorial rights and liberties – which had existed for thousands and thousands of years.

    But what right and liberties are you referring to? The right to subjugate races and cultures deemed inferior to your own (by your own.) The liberty to treat those races differently (as less important, less fit)?

    Because those were the rights and liberties which had existed since time immemorial. The right for other races and cultures to be treated as equals is an extremely recent state of affairs.

    So if it was right for the State to intervene to change those long held, morally abject, ‘rights’ of some, then how can it not be argued that the State should act to change the long held exclusion of some from the liberty to marry?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    And even more to the point of this thread – just what is the specific issue with John Key holding views on these things?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. iMP (2,456 comments) says:

    CoNZerv is exploring a link between Pedophilia and Euthanasia. Interesting. http://conzervative.wordpress.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    eszett –

    For Christopher’s sake! Calm down dear.

    1. They weren’t my words, they were the words of JR Morse – a libertarian from Yale.
    2. As to their meaning, they’re perfectly clear – that marriage in its traditional forms pre-exists the state and other political instruments.

    bhudson –

    While fear of the other is a natural human instinct, the psuedo-science of racism actually has a rather recent pedigree. I am afraid you have probably been failed by our state education system, but if you read a few books you might learn a few surprising facts – like the fact that there was a black Roman Emperor or that the first legally recognised slave-owner in the United States – Anthony Johnson – was himself a black man.

    Racism has a terrible and odious history, but it shouldn’t be legitimised further by granting it a pedigree it doesn’t have. In the meantime, open your mind a little beyond the approved syllabus of studies in how uniquely awful Western Civilisation is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Scott (1,807 comments) says:

    bhudson “And even more to the point of this thread – just what is the specific issue with John Key holding views on these things?”

    My point was that John Key was the pragmatic guy who would fix the economy. The electorate had had enough of Labour social engineering. The anti-smacking bill was widely recognised as leading to the demise of Labour from government. It was the straw that broke the camel’s back after nine years of Labour’s social engineering, which included civil unions, the championing of all things gay and the normalisation of prostitution as a legitimate commercial activity.

    Now with Labour having been roundly rejected at the polls, they still bring in legislation anyway under the Private members bills and our Prime Minister supports them. So we find ourselves with more radical social engineering, this time aided and abetted by a National Prime Minister.

    The specific issue Mr Hudson is that what if National had let slip and Mr Key in particular had let slip prior to the last election that he would be supporting gay marriage and euthanasia if elected to office in this next term? Do you honestly think that the majority of National party supporters would be with him? Do you honestly think he would even have been in a position to be Prime Minister right now, if his views had become known?

    Well he has nailed his colours to the wall. He is a liberal progressive. His only difference to Helen Clark is the marginal tax rates and some tinkering with welfare. Otherwise there is no difference to the labour years. So the specific issue Mr Hudson for those of us that voted National is that we feel like complete idiots. We voted for someone who would fix the economy and get people back to work. Who would govern sensibly and stay out of social issues. Like he said that he would.

    Instead he is leading his party into the left-wing radical social engineering arena of the Labour party. That is the specific issue Mr Hudson. If we wanted Helen Clark and more social engineering we would have voted for her. Instead the electorate voted for National. We thought we would have something different. Instead we have more of the same policies coming down the pipe.

    It’s called electoral betrayal. It’s called betrayal of the electorate and the party for which he stands. That is the specific issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. cha (4,139 comments) says:

    http://newhumanist.org.uk/2848/the-case-for-assisted-dying

    Even so, after decades of campaigning, the law has yet to change. How can this be? The answer is simple: there has been a highly organised opposition by individuals and groups, largely with strong religious beliefs that forbid assistance to die. Such groups know that religious absolutism cuts little ice in a predominantly secular society, where many will point out that the doctrine of the sanctity of life has been historically negotiable, with clerics supporting “just” wars that kill the innocent, and in some cases the death sentence for murder, apostasy, blasphemy or being gay. (Some religions, it seems, are more at ease with killing healthy people who want to live than with helping terminally ill people to realise their wish to be released from suffering.) The role of religion is particularly evident in the case of the medical profession, where bodies such as Care Not Killing and the Christian Medical Fellowship are punching above their numerical weight.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    Cato,

    Firstly, I used the term “races and cultures” for a reason. Prejudice has existed between many races and cultures and was never the sole domain of Europeans. Slavery was a long held ‘right’ for any victorious group. Just because many different races and culture deemed it acceptable for a great period of time does not make in any less morally abject now.

    A black man owning a black slave does not legitimise the practise for him or anyone else.

    A little more on Anthony Jackson – not only was he was a former slave himself, but, despite being the first owner of a legal African slave, upon his death his land was seized by a white Virginian planter on the basis that “as a black man, Anthony Johnson was not a citizen of the colony.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)

    Not exactly a poster child for down playing the ‘pedigree’ of racism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    It’s called electoral betrayal. It’s called betrayal of the electorate and the party for which he stands. That is the specific issue.

    Scott, it is no such thing. It may have escaped your attention that, not only did National not introduce legislation to the House regarding euthanasia or same sex marriage, John Key has been very clear that it would not; that a National-led government had more pressing issues to attend to. Not the least of which are the rebuilding of Christchurch and weathering a very difficult economic climate.

    These other matters have been introduced via Private Members’ Bills and are not something that JK or any govt can influence – they are either drawn or they are not. Once drawn they must be attended to in accordance with Standing Orders.

    The only alternative for John Key – so as to avoid the charge of electoral betrayal that you level at him – is to subvert our democratic process. To legislate to deem that the Bill has not been drawn. Or, having been drawn, not to be debated.

    Such a thing would be a far more heinous betrayal – a betrayal of our democractic process; a betrayal of our democracy.

    Having been faced with the need to address a Bill, which is also to be a conscience vote, JK has expressed his personal view (when asked.) How that is somehow a betrayal of the electorate beggars belief. Had National introduced the Bill then I could see why you might hold that. It did not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Bhudson –

    Nice little school project on Wikipedia there. Well done! Four stars!

    So it’s not a perfect example – so what? It does show that the racialisation of the laws was not nearly as advanced as it more recently became. Perhaps the better example would be to note that, at the time Anthony Johnson was freed, there would have been nothing to stop him from marrying a white woman of age – as was the common law right of he and his ancestors. Later, Virginia did enact an anti-miscegenation statute – depriving him of his pre-existing rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. slightlyrighty (2,097 comments) says:

    http://press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/june/mcpherson.pdf

    I urge everyone on both sides of the euthanasia debate to read this article, written by Tess McPherson, a medical practitioner, on the protracted death of her mother, who was also a medical practitioner.

    If such a death cannot be avoided my medical professionals as late as last May, then how can the average Lay person hope to avoid it. This matter needs to be addressed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Dazzaman (1,082 comments) says:

    The snake in the grass.

    There is now no conservative option for New Zealanders other than NZ First & the Conservative party. I’m out of the fold with the far left social National party as of today.

    This guy is on the same level as Klarkula….I never thought I would say it but bring back Helen!! Well, no, not really. No wonder Kiwis are pissing off in record numbers.

    Something has to break with this two faced prick, he was voted in to get us out of the economic mire…not to carry on the social engineering bullshit of his predecessor.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    Cato (92) Says:
    August 23rd, 2012 at 12:21 pm

    Weihana,

    I should have been more specific in referring you to Justice Keith’s tightly reasoned judgment.

    I do not see anything in his judgment that highlights a logical flaw in what I was saying. Perhaps you should specifically quote the part you think is relevant.

    Keith’s argument was that the s19 prohibition on discrimination is necessarily, by its nature, limited in purpose and scope. That it cannot be expected to have an “instant wide-ranging effect” and that issues must be worked out “case by case”. In a general sense I agree with this.

    He highlighted that marriage is restricted on other grounds as well such as marital status, age, and family status (all prohibited grounds of discrimination). Again, valid points.

    But the point I was making to Andrei was that discrimination cannot be determined by hard and fast rules such as Andrei was employing (i.e. that equality is automatically found where the same rules apply to all). There seems to be a consensus amongst the justices on this point as well that assessing whether something is discriminatory, in terms of the legislative prohibition upon it, cannot be made by such hard and fast reasoning, such as Andrei has employed.

    Tipping stated:

    “For discrimination to occur one group of persons must be treated differently from another person or group of persons.”

    What Andrei has done is arbitrarily limit his consideration to the individual in an attempt to ignore the real issue at hand which is the couple which seeks to be married and which claims discrimination relative to other couples. If he was addressing the real issue then he should be arguing why such discrimination is justified (just as discrimination in terms of marital status, age, and family status may be argued to be justified). Pretending that there is no issue by claiming that equality is found in their ability to marry someone of the opposite sex is disingenuous in my view and an attempt to avoid the real argument.

    It is important to note that while I agree with the court’s judgment, their judgment is based on the law, not personal opinion. The fact that I have an ultimate different opinion does not imply that my views are illogical compared to those of the court. In fact from what I’ve read I largely agree with the reasoning of the court. My disagreement is with Parliament and I agree with the court that it is for Parliament to update the laws to properly reflect the evolving attitudes of New Zealanders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Andrei (2,653 comments) says:

    Weihana you complete dolt – all couples are not equal, not because of discrimination but by nature.

    Men bond with women to make babies – this is why we have marriage. The whole thing is about making sure that we have enough people to continue our society into the future

    Two men cannot make babies with each other and nor can two women.

    This is dangerous nonsense

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. annie (539 comments) says:

    Euthanasia: the PM is, quite simply, lying. Presumably he’s the victim of some of the medical misinformation that seems routinely to come his way.

    Euthanasia in the sense of a permitted, planned death, doesn’t take place in our hospitals, or if it does it is rare and usually involves the rather vile method of witholding fluids from an unconscous patient who will never recover. But who, if the evidence is to be believed, can still experience thirst.

    You may, if you are fortunate enough to have a humane hospital physician who puts your welfare above that of his/her own immortal soul, be given enough opiates to render you pain-free, even at the risk of causing a respiratory arrest. On the other hand, and more usually in busy hospitals, you may just be left to get on with it. However, if you start looking comfortable, forget any further dose increases.

    The hospices encourage the view that they are little oases of calm and comfort, and indeed to a significant extent they are. But not all people have a good response to opiates – for many they don’t do a hell of a lot. You can give 10mg of morphine to a person with severe acute appendicitis and render them comfortable; to another person of the same weight and gender the same dose will just take a tiny edge off. For instance. Cancer pain is no different.

    More importantly, the hospices don’t see, supervise or admit all patients, and in many cases don’t do it well. Te Omanga in Lower Hutt is an excellent hospice; but if you live in other cities you can’t be assured that you will even be seen – some hospices seem to be pretty quick to work to rule if they get full, and to hell with the leftovers.

    This sort of bland ignorance on the PM’s part is not only disappointing, it’s positively harmful to the facts of the debate. We need both decent palliative care and the option for voluntary euthanasia. At the moment we have neither.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Pete George (23,798 comments) says:

    annie’s account of the current situation here seems very accurate.

    There’s an excellent hospice in Dunedin, I don’t know how you can do it better, but I have seen firsthand how that doesn’t necessarily avoid an uncomfortable, anguished and ignominious death.

    We need both decent palliative care and the option for voluntary euthanasia.

    I agree – there is some decent palliative care, it needs to be more widely and easily available.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    Andrei (1,415) Says:
    August 23rd, 2012 at 2:49 pm

    Weihana you complete dolt

    “I have always believed that the atheists, the enlightened people, are the ones that start hurling abuse. On this thread here is the proof, once again. Personal attacks, personal abuse, directed at somebody personally. By the atheists.”

    – Scott

    :)

    – all couples are not equal, not because of discrimination but by nature.

    Agreed. An infertile couple is not equal in nature to a fertile couple. But Andrei that is not the point. Equality before the law is not the same thing as equality in nature.

    Men bond with women to make babies – this is why we have marriage. The whole thing is about making sure that we have enough people to continue our society into the future

    Two men cannot make babies with each other and nor can two women.

    This is dangerous nonsense

    Interesting concept Andrei. I posted some days ago a link to an article which discussed new areas of research which held the promise of procreation outside the womb including procreation using a combination of DNA from same sex couples.

    Even assuming your absurd premise that we must actively worry about whether people will procreate (as if the desire isn’t naturally built in), then in less time than you think homosexuals could be contributing to this effort that you deem so important… that’s if God doesn’t flood the earth before then.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Weihana –

    As you are obviously a legal expert, I am hoping you can tell me where I am wrong.

    The NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 prohibits discrimination. Ms Quilter challenged the refusal to grant her and her same sex partner a marriage licence under the Marriage Act 1955 (which accords with the common-law view of marriage). She alleged that this was discrimination – prohibited by section 19 of BORA. The five justices held as follows:

    – Heath J held that it was probably discriminatory, but that his hands were tied because of section 4

    – Tipping J agreed that his hands were tied by section 4, but also said, obiter dicta, that it might be discrimination under a ‘disparate impact analysis’

    -Richardson P, Keith J and Gault J – a majority – also went further to agree with that, per Richardson P, that: “However, in view of
    the differing views expressed in other judgments I record that in agreement with Keith J and Gault J I am not persuaded that the right under s19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 to freedom from discrimination requires equal legislative recognition of heterosexual and same sex marriages.”

    It has never seemed clear to me why this fact seems to be overlooked in the discussion on Quilter.

    Lastly, I just note the final remarks from Gault J: “On the evidence it seems to me that the real complaint the appellants have is not that they are ineligible for licences to marry but that they are denied rights and privileges which are available to married persons.”

    Which, from a policy perspective, has now been addressed by the Civil Union Act.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. eszett (2,450 comments) says:

    Men bond with women to make babies – this is why we have marriage. The whole thing is about making sure that we have enough people to continue our society into the future

    That’s just utter rubbish. It just delusional nonsense trying to some rationalise your otherwise completely irrational opposition to same sex marriage.

    Truth is couples marry for a whole lot of reasons. Foremostly love, I’d say. Companionship, safety, fancial reasons, or just for the sake of it. Having children may be one of the reasons, but surely not the overriding reason. Certainly not the ONLY reason as you describe it.

    The continuation of our society is in no way endangered by gay marriage. Quite the contrary. There will be more marriages, more stronger families, straight couples will continue to have children at the same rate as they did before and guess what, gay couples wil be having children as well. Lesbians do so roght now, gay couples have more difficulties, biut they can adopt.

    So, on the whole, your argument is self defeating because it will actually help marriage and society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    It does show that the racialisation of the laws was not nearly as advanced as it more recently became.

    Cato, holding that a person cannot own property because they are not a citizen of the colony for the sole reason of their skin colour is the sign of very advanced racialisation of laws

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    Your man + man does not equal baby argument is redundant in light of the fact that most babies wouldn’t be here today if it wasn’t for c-sections.
    I’ve got five that wouldn’t be here but for c-sections. And thanks to that op and having a large family I am all set for world domination Bush style.
    And that naughty formula probably picks up a good 25% of babies who would otherwise fail to thrive.
    We have evolved to the point that caring parents are the only prerequisite for parenthood.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. chiz (1,174 comments) says:

    cato: After all, for thousands of years before and after the Dark Ages – and in all cultures outside the European peninsula – marriage has been defined in conjugal terms

    Apart from those gay marriages in ancient Rome, you mean. Or those gay marriages in christian countries during the middle ages. Or those human-animal marriages which sometimes occur in other religions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Bhudson – you’re missing the point. The Court ruling occured on Johnson’s death in 1670 – after he had been farming quite succesfully for about 50 years. According to scholars, Johnson was during his lifetime a respected man in the community and it was around the time of his death, after Virginia had just enacted its first anti-micegenation law, that things started to get much worse – and the racialisation of slavery, a non-disputed phenomenon – had begun in earnest.

    But that’s minutiae because the point is that we are led to believe that anti-micegenation and segregation based on skin colour was the norm until about 1968, when the enlightened and virtuous baby-boomers had first started coming of age. Serious racial theories, of the sort that purported to justify the innovation of anti-micegenation, didn’t really begin until the 19th century.

    AND the point of that observation is that anti-micegenation involved the banning of marriages that had heretofor been recognised as valid and legitimate, on the basis of some novel political fashion. Whatever you think about redefining marriage to strip away conjugal requirements, it’s just not the same thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    Cato (94) Says:
    August 23rd, 2012 at 4:19 pm

    Weihana –

    As you are obviously a legal expert, I am hoping you can tell me where I am wrong.

    I’m not a legal expert.

    The NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 prohibits discrimination.

    Simplistic. It doesn’t prohibit discrimination in a general sense it identifies particular unlawful grounds of discrimination. That is not a blanket ban on discrimination.

    And of course, even if something is unlawful discrimination in terms of the HRA, it may still be lawful if Parliament wishes it to be.

    In any case, the fact that my personal views are inconsistent with the law does not make them illogical. I was never purporting to make a legal argument against Andrei. I was simply trying to convey that he was avoiding the real issue with a red herring.

    Lastly, I just note the final remarks from Gault J: “On the evidence it seems to me that the real complaint the appellants have is not that they are ineligible for licences to marry but that they are denied rights and privileges which are available to married persons.”

    Which, from a policy perspective, has now been addressed by the Civil Union Act.

    More or less, minus adoption.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Chiz –

    “Apart from those gay marriages in ancient Rome, you mean. Or those gay marriages in christian countries during the middle ages. Or those human-animal marriages which sometimes occur in other religions”

    Care to explain. There are precisely two examples of purported legally sanctioned gay marriages in Roman history (and in fact, in all recorded history until very recently). Both were Roman Emperors and in both instances, the purported marriages were cited as proof of their aberrant nature – and so may not have actually occurred. In any event – one of them was Nero(!) and his ‘gay marriage’ is questionable since he first had his ‘husband’ castrated to transform his gender.

    As to the “marriages in christian countries during the middle ages” I can only assume you are referring to the discredited claims of the late John Boswell that the Byzantine rite of adelphopoiesis was somehow an equivalent to “gay marriage” – a claim that nobody else has ever really taken seriously and which is recognised as an exercise in activist-psuedo history by most advocates of gay marriage.

    And in terms of precedent for gay marriages (as opposed to tolerance of gay relationships and even civil union-like domestic partnerships) that’s it. That’s the sum total of historical precedent in all human civilisations from the beginning of recorded history.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Weihana –

    Section 19 of BORA: “(1) Everyone has the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of discrimination in the Human Rights Act 1993.”

    Section 21 of HRA: “For the purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are … (m) sexual orientation, which means a heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation.”

    So is it unreasonable to deduce that, given that our top Court (at the time) considered that traditional marriage did not interfere with the freeom of discrimination of homosexuals, it is not an act of unparalleled hatred to agree with that view. After all, if the law is designed to (at least) find discrimination and the court said that the law failed to do that here, it hardly seems unreasonable to me. Unless you think the former Court of Appeal justice’s were in the closet for Brian Tamaki.

    You know, I’m not a religious nutter, and I think I have some liberal instincts. But do you know why I can never bring myself to be one? It’s the bad faith. 15 years ago hardly anyone believed that it made sense to redefine marriage. 6 years ago, civil union proponents swore that gay marriage wasn’t on the agenda – why would they do that, if as a just policy it is so obvious? And yet just a few short years later, you can’t be even mildly against not changing the marriage laws without being pronounced an anathema to decent society.

    It’s just so obnoxious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. nasska (12,095 comments) says:

    Cato

    As an atheist the subject doesn’t bother me greatly one way or the other but a while back someone referenced this site:

    http://www.christianity-revealed.com/cr/files/whensamesexmarriagewasachristianrite.html

    True or false?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. chiz (1,174 comments) says:

    There were other cases of gay marriage in Rome – see here for others. Do you have a link to the discrediting of Boswell? His claims go beyond just adelphopoiesis – see here .

    And then there is till the problem of the non-conjugal marriages between humans and animals that, on rare occasions, have been practiced by other religions (usually to lift curses or similar).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Almost universally acknowledged as an untenable interpretation. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelphopoiesis

    This is what happens when politics just pervades everything. We want something to be true, so it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Chiz – you can point to individual examples of Romans claiming to be married but that’s not the same thing at all as that being a socially or legally recognised institution. Do you know that some Catholic priests have performed Black Masses before? It hardly follows that Satan-worship has always been part of Catholicism. I repeat, there has never been an instance of legally or socially approved gay marriage in recorded history before the 1990s – despite the fact that there have hundreds of gay-friendly societies – some of whom MAY have had domestic partnerships. A more thorough debunking of Boswell here: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/gay-marriage-reimagining-church-history-50 and by radical feminist Camile Paglia here: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/bosrev-paglia.asp

    The frustrating thing is, I’m not necessarily even against legal gay marriage! I just can’t stand the unreasonableness of proponents who refuse to concede the reasonableness of the other side, or the plain facts in terms of the history of marriage.

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

    Quilter was argued as a Bill of Rights case, and before the Human Rights Act 1993 was amended in 2002 so as to bring Goverment legislation and policy under the umbrella of the HRA (Part 1A HRA). The “ingredients” of a Part 1A claim include: an Act of Parliament (or Government policy) which discriminates on a prohibited ground and for which there is no “demonstrable justification”. It involves a complicated to-ing and fro-ing begween the BORA and the HRA. The meaning of “discrimination” has always been the sticking point. However, the Court of Appeal this year in Atkinson provided clear guidance on what it means – and has thereby siginficantly rid us of the dog’s breakfast that was Quilter. At [109] the Court said:

    “We consider that differential treatment on a prohibited ground of a person or group in comparable circumstances will be discriminatory if, when viewed in context, it imposes a material disadvantage on the person or group differentiated against”.

    I would venture to suggest that if there was a HRA challenge to the Marriage Act 1955, it would succeed, based upon that definition. I doubt that the Government would argue that the current Marriage Act 1955 did not discriminate against same sex people. The Government’s defence (section 5 BORA) would be that prohibiting same sex marriage is “demonstrably justified in a free and deomcratic society”. That would be the whole “end of civilisation as we know it” defence, I suppose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    “I doubt that the Government would argue that the current Marriage Act 1955 did not discriminate against same sex people.”

    – which is not the same thing as saying that it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    As the European Court of Human Rights reaffirmed as early as March of this year, I meant to add.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. eszett (2,450 comments) says:

    I just can’t stand the unreasonableness of proponents who refuse to concede the reasonableness of the other side, or the plain facts in terms of the history of marriage.

    That’s pretty funny, Cato, given those opposing are throwing every unreasonable “argument” they can find against the proposal and then are making up “historical facts” as they go.

    You seem pretty onesided which “unreasonableness” you can’t stand.

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

    I could be wrong – and someone will correct me if I am – but I think the difference between the ECHR decision and the NZ position is that in the UK (which is where the challenge came from), non-married same sex couples may adopt, and so there is no “material disadvantage” in the UK restricting marriage to heterosexual couples. Here the argument would be that the material disadvantage is the inability of same sex couples to adopt children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Hardly. It makes me wince to hear people say “traditional marriage needs be preserved because it’s a Christian concept” or “Marriage comes from the bible” – that’s just an unrigourous as citing Nero or tendentiously interpreted Byzantine texts in support of gay marriage. It drives me up the wall.

    But here’s the weird thing – the only people I ever hear banging on about the bible and citing specific Christian doctrine on Kiwiblog comments are liberals and progressives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    civil serpent –

    Herewith the corrections:

    – the challenge came from France (at least, the plaintiffs I am referring to were French);
    – the challenge did originate in an attempted adoption;
    – however, the Court did reaffirm that the member states are not required to enact gay marriage laws to comply with the ECHR;
    – the Court, in doing so, also reaffirmed the recent case of Schalk and Kopf v Austria which also stated that traditional marriage laws did not violate the non-discrimination provisions of the convention.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. eszett (2,450 comments) says:

    that’s just an unrigourous as citing Nero or tendentiously interpreted Byzantine texts in support of gay marriage. It drives me up the wall.

    I agree, it’s irrelevant. Whether or not it’s true, it has no bearing on whether we should allow same sex marriage or not. However that came up pretty late in the whole discussion, so I find that rather strange that this is what upsets you. You joined into the discussion taking sides a lot earlier.

    But here’s the weird thing – the only people I ever hear banging on about the bible and citing specific Christian doctrine on Kiwiblog comments are liberals and progressives.

    Really? The only people? You must be very selective in your hearing then.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    eszett

    As to Nero and so forth – well I mean in discussions generally.

    Maybe I don’t read the comments enough – but next time somebody cites a non-proverbial Bible verse in support or against a public policy matter, I promise to castigate them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    Bhudson – you’re missing the point. The Court ruling occured on Johnson’s death in 1670… and it was around the time of his death, after Virginia had just enacted its first anti-micegenation law, that things started to get much worse…

    Cato, you’re conflating elements of discrimination. His land being forfeited upon his death had nothing to do with the anti-miscegenation laws – they banned interracial sexual relations and marriage. They had nothing to do with citizenship and the right to own property. (Albeit, I accept they were a sign of the general disposition towards African Americans at the time.)

    In any case we appear to be arguing from two different perspectives. While you appear to be arguing specifically on “rights and liberties” with respect to the presumed common law right to interracial marriage prior to the anti-miscegenation laws (presumed as a link to a successful test in court prior to then would be useful) my earlier point was that the “rights and liberties” which had existed immemorial were the rights to discriminate against and subjugate based on a belief that one’s race and culture was superior (a belief not limited to a single ethnic group I might reiterate) and, of course, that one was able to conquer said group. That is, it was a argument of general human equality, not specifically, nor solely, to do with interracial marriage.

    The end point being that if it is accepted that the State’s intervention to address the morally abject right to uphold human inequality was right, then it must also be arguable that there is a prima facie case , based on human equality, for the State to remove a discrimination within the licensing of marriage to exclude same sex partners.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. slightlyrighty (2,097 comments) says:

    To those who argue that two women or two men cannot make a baby, biologically you are right. They cannot create offspring within their own relationship.

    But what of a hetero couple where one is infertile and they need intervention from a third party. Are they any less married due to their status? They love each other, they have pledged their lives to each other, but they cannot procreate.

    What of elderly couples, say a widow and widower who have a late life marriage. Are they any less married given their childless status which will not change?

    One thing I do know. A gay or lesbian couple may not be able to create a baby without help, but they need no help to build a family. I know a lesbian couple who have 2 children thanks to artificial insemination, and they are a happy loving caring family who work, pay the mortgage and are raising 2 wonderful children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Johnboy (17,018 comments) says:

    I used to dress up in a sheepskin rug when I was a kid. Never affected me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. nasska (12,095 comments) says:

    Aha! The skills of camouflage learnt early!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,495 comments) says:

    Lets just dissolve the entire concept of marriage and make it civil unions for all.

    Problem solved. Gays and Straights to have the exact same sort of bond. Of course this will mean that adoption will be more difficult for straights now, not to mention things like making decisions for your better half if they’re ill too.

    Straights have ruined the concept of marriage more than any gay person has. To say otherwise is being deliberately stupid.

    Christians have no place to define what is love (as they hate), to be against war (as wars in the name of god are being fought endlessly) nor should they have a right to be any marker of morality in our society. Lets just ignore them, their numbers are thinning out anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Shunda barunda (2,986 comments) says:

    Straights have ruined the concept of marriage more than any gay person has. To say otherwise is being deliberately stupid.

    Christians have no place to define what is love (as they hate), to be against war (as wars in the name of god are being fought endlessly) nor should they have a right to be any marker of morality in our society. Lets just ignore them, their numbers are thinning out anyway.

    Well, look, you make a good point and one that is impossible to ignore.

    But there are people (like me and my wife) that used marriage as a way of escaping those things you just mentioned.

    We simply would not have ever been able to escape our dysfunctional families (and in my wife’s case deeply religious pentecostal pastors for parents) if it wasn’t for our marriage ideals.

    We made it work, we fought off some awful crap and managed to provide a much better foundation for our children than we had available to us.

    This is why I think marriage can still have tremendous value as a heterosexual institution, especially for younger couples and their prospective new families.

    My strength of opinion on this is based on my experience, and even though I still hold a faith of sorts, I do not think the ‘church’ should be considered as the only conservative voice on this, it shouldn’t be seen as a religious issue in my opinion.

    I personally resent the way the organised church has handled this issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. eszett (2,450 comments) says:

    Shunda, I agree with you that it can have tremendous value as an institution, but why does it have to be a specific heterosexual instituation? Everything you say can be equally applied to same sex couples without any impact on heterosexual couples.

    Why can it not have tremendous value just as an institution regardless sexual orientation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. PaulL (5,449 comments) says:

    Shunda: I absolutely see value in marriage. I just don’t see what that has to do with the govt. Abolish all laws about marriage. In the eyes of the law, everyone has a civil union. Then people can get married if they want, but it’s something they do under their religion or other arrangement – it’s nothing to do with the govt. Problem solved.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,495 comments) says:

    Shunda, I appreciate the fact that marriage has provided to you both immense life changing benefits. That itself is proof that not all straight people desecrate the spirit of marriage. So in light of that, what will a few hundred gay couples do to make that any less special for you? Many of the christian activists here (they know who they are) are saying marriage will be meaningless but have yet to prove how a loving gay couple is any worse than a showmance straight marriage lasting a few weeks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    “But what of a hetero couple where one is infertile and they need intervention from a third party. Are they any less married due to their status? They love each other, they have pledged their lives to each other, but they cannot procreate.”

    According to religious bigots like Lucia Maria they are far less married. If they seek to have IVF treatment they are the personification of evil.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    “This is the most morally judgmental government in history but the morals they are imposing are those of the secular elites”

    Lol!..That comment is laughable given that the author wants to impose the morals of religious bigots on the people of NZ.

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

    Big bruv
    you’ve got it half right.

    yes they can’t have babies but they are a man and a woman.

    the core issue isn’t babies but gender.

    Marriage is a man and a woman because that is what a marriage is a a man and a woman bringing their two lives together.
    If they don’t have children then the marriage is incomplete in that sense but they still have married.

    Now the overarching purpose of marriage is for a safe environment to bring forth children and nuture and grown them through example and education into fruition as men and women and ultimately fathers and mothers.
    For this to properly occur one needs a man and a woman.

    Because they are different from each other, the man brings all the masculine things seen and unseen to the environment and the woman brings all her things which are different from the man.
    two blokes do not cut the mustard.
    They never have and they never will and visa versa for two girls too.

    A man and a woman is different in dynamic to two of the same gender.
    even allowing for the good graces of two very well intentioned people of thew same gender.
    they just don’t cut the mustard and never will.

    This is so basic I really don’t understand why people don’t get this instead of getting hung up on sex.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. slightlyrighty (2,097 comments) says:

    Some people have led some very insular and sheltered lives. Yes My 2 Cents, I’m talking about you. You need to get out more.

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