Rodney on same sex marriage

August 5th, 2012 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

writes in the HoS:

The Marriage Act 1955 doesn’t say I can’t marry a man or that a woman can’t marry a woman.

But the courts have ruled that it wasn’t Parliament’s intent to enable same-sex marriage and that it’s up to Parliament, not the courts, to declare whether same-sex marriages are lawful, not the courts. It’s a fair call.

Back when the Marriage Act was enacted, homosexual activity was a crime carrying a maximum of life imprisonment. It’s a safe bet that parliamentarians then weren’t envisaging they were passing a law that would enable two men to apply for a marriage licence.

A very safe bet.

But even then the law had softened towards homosexuality.

Parliamentarians in the early days were hard core and set the penalty for homosexual activity as death. The death penalty for buggery was removed in 1867.

The 1893 New Zealand Criminal Code was still discouraging: “Everyone is liable to imprisonment with hard labour for life, and, according to his age, to be flogged or whipped, once, twice or thrice, who commits buggery either with a human being or with any other living creature”.

The flogging for buggery was removed in 1941 and hard labour removed in 1954.

The 1961 Crimes Act reduced the maximum sentence for sodomy between consenting adult males to seven years’ prison.

The big change was in 1986, when Parliament voted by a narrow margin to decriminalise homosexual activity. Consensual sex between men was no longer a crime.

A very interesting history lesson. And I’m willing to bet that at every stage, there were probably opponents who warned that this law change would be awful for New Zealand. They were wrong every time. Hell, as an 18 year old student I was against, due to the fact my views were based on fear and ignorance, rather than principle.

Is there a single MP alive today who voted against decriminalising homosexual activity in 1986, and doesn’t regret it? I doubt it. People may be surprised at some of those who voted against.

Stan Rodger, Peter Tapsell, John Terris, Whetu Tirakatene-Sullivan, John Banks, Bill Birch, Jim Bolger, Philip Burdon, Michael Cox, Warren Cooper, Paul East, Tony Friedlander, Jim Gerard, Doug Graham, Doug Kidd, Denis Marshall, Roger McClay, Don McKinnon, Jim McLay, Winston Peters, Ruth Richardson, Lockwood Smith, Simon Upton, Venn Young were some of the 44 votes against. It only passed 49 votes to 44.

Only three National MPs voted for it – George Gair, Katherine O’Regan and Ian McLean.

I know a lot of those who voted against it, and they are good people. But I bet you the vast majority of them 25 years on regret their vote. It must be tough to have on your record that you voted for consensual sex between two adults to remain a criminal offence.

While I respect legitimate and sincere views against , I do think there will be quite a few MPs who vote against who will end up with regrets in the future. is absolutely inevitable in my view, as support for it is massively high amongst under 35s. And in 15 years time, nothing will have changed except some gay couples will be married, rather than just in a civil union.

But the MPs who voted against will find that in 15 years time, many New Zealanders will find it incomprehensible that they voted against allowing same sex couples to marry – just as in 2010 we find it incomprehensible that such good MPs such as  Jim Bolger, Philip Burdon, Michael Cox, Paul East, Doug Graham, Doug Kidd, Don McKinnon, Jim McLay, Ruth Richardson, Simon Upton and Venn Young voted to retain a law which made consensual adult sex punishable by up to seven years in jail.

Can anyone find an MP who voted No in 1986, and would vote the same way today on the same law?

Consensual sex between women was never illegal in New Zealand. Early legislators thought such a thing impossible and didn’t like to think about it and so never criminalised it.

Good old Queen Victoria!

Rodney concludes:

I have enormous respect for conservative values and traditional ways of doing things. But here’s the question for those pushing traditional values against same-sex marriage: what tradition do you want our Parliament to push back to? The death penalty? Flogging? Hard labour? Life imprisonment? Seven years’ jail?

Our Parliament has a sad and sorry history in its treatment of two adults who just want to love and be with one another.

Let’s hope with Louisa Wall’s bill that history is finally made just that: history.

Absolutely.

Tags: ,

166 Responses to “Rodney on same sex marriage”

  1. Mary Rose (393 comments) says:

    Must we?

    Again?

    I mean, your blog and all that. But after the Afghanistan post…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. eszett (2,401 comments) says:

    what tradition do you want our Parliament to push back to? The death penalty? Flogging? Hard labour? Life imprisonment? Seven years’ jail?

    To some here that would be just a splendid idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. backster (2,152 comments) says:

    Rodney…….”But here’s the question for those pushing traditional values against same-sex marriage: what tradition do you want our Parliament to push back to? The death penalty? Flogging? Hard labour? Life imprisonment? Seven years’ jail?”

    Yep.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. ephemera (556 comments) says:

    The Queen Victoria thing is a myth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. kowtow (8,326 comments) says:

    Extraordinary ,the utter collapse in values in a short space of time between 1986 and today.

    It goes to show how effective the “progressive” machine is especially on the younger sheep in the fold.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. dog_eat_dog (780 comments) says:

    Ah yes, pre 1986 NZ, where everything was great and dandy and no one was ever killed, murdered, beaten or raped. What a golden era of milk and honey, spoiled by a few dudes peeing in each other’s butts.

    Am I doing this right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. iMP (2,366 comments) says:

    But Rodney’s comments are fundamentally wrong on one thing: “…Our Parliament has a sad and sorry history in its treatment of two adults who just want to love and be with one another….”

    current marriage law does not PREVENT loving same-sex adults being together. They even have a legal Union option recognised in law.

    This bill is really about MAINSTREAMING homosexuality and CHANGING thoiusand-year old cultural, religious and secular comprehensions of what “Marriage” is, so I don’t think the Homosexual Law Reform votes are comparable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. iMP (2,366 comments) says:

    My biggest objection, is the bill will ‘by-design’ deny children (through adoption mechanisms, the only way gay couples can ‘have’ children) balanced gender parenting (a male and female mentor and guide in early development). That will radically alter our society. And surely kids have this right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. flipper (3,991 comments) says:

    Please do not misunderstand me.

    Some of my most enjoyable social evenings and/or events were in the village (Gren, NY) with relatives and friends – homosexual couples who love each other and their lifestyle. But they clamour not for “marriage”, simply saying that it is NOT an issue. Moreover, the only aggressive homosexual advances I have experienced came from NZ electronic media folk – one of whom even pursued me to my home, based upon nothing more than an excellent, professional, working relationship.

    As a hetrosexual (and unasamedly so) I am ambivalent on the issue of same sex “marriage”.

    Ergo, can you direct me to reliable research please (not PC crap, assertions or pleadings, but scientific data), that supports the thesis that homosexuality (male and female) is a natural state/option for humans?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. wat dabney (3,726 comments) says:

    kowtow,

    Extraordinary ,the utter collapse in values in a short space of time between 1986 and today.

    Please do expand on this, as I must have missed it.

    In fact, I think everyone but you will have missed it.

    Which suggests it’s all in your mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. eszett (2,401 comments) says:

    iMP (635) Says:
    August 5th, 2012 at 10:23 am

    My biggest objection, is the bill will ‘by-design’ deny children (through adoption mechanisms, the only way gay couples can ‘have’ children) balanced gender parenting (a male and female mentor and guide in early development). That will radically alter our society.

    What utter nonsense!

    How will it deny it? Are only gay couples going to be allowed to adopt?
    How many gay adoptions will there be, do you think, to radically alter our society? In relation to single parent families?

    But, it will alter our society (albeit only sleight, but still ) and for the better.

    More children having the possibility to be raised by loving, stable families.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. kowtow (8,326 comments) says:

    Jeez you’re deliberately obtuse ,wart d.

    1986 a close vote to decriminalise homosexual behaviour and now 2012 we are quite likely to have an ancient concept ,marriage, redefined to institutionalise what was a crime only 26 years ago.Truly extraordinary.

    ps I have no problem with what 2 consenting adults do within the privacy of their own homes and as such would have no problem with the 1986 vote.However redefining marriage is a step too far.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Scott Chris (6,068 comments) says:

    To give credit where credit is due – good article Rodney. Informative.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. eszett (2,401 comments) says:

    However redefining marriage is a step too far.

    Do you think allowing divorce was a step too far?
    That certainly had a greater impact on the definition of marriage ( and thousand years of tradition) than allowing same sex couple to marry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. wat dabney (3,726 comments) says:

    I have no problem with what 2 consenting adults do within the privacy of their own homes and as such would have no problem with the 1986 vote.However redefining marriage is a step too far.

    Again, this is precisely what they said about mixed race marriage.

    Perhaps you could prepare some handy wall charts, showing who you think should be allowed to marry whom?

    http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/nurem-laws.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. kowtow (8,326 comments) says:

    eszett,what are you talking about. Divorce has always been around.
    Even Julius Caesar did it.
    Our Lord Jesus Christ said it was OK on grounds of adultery.
    Henry8 famously got divorced.

    I don’t get your point. How can divorce have an impact on the definition of marriage?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. wiseowl (869 comments) says:

    KT. It’s patently obvious there are those out there who just cannot get their head around the fact that two likes can’t ‘marry’.

    There is a mental block and those who think in a superficial way fall in to this category.

    This is about a greater agenda than just redefining marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. kowtow (8,326 comments) says:

    Got nothing to do with what “they” said about race. This is gender,very different. Typical trying to play the ugly race card which is irrelevant to this debate . A deliberate distraction.

    Marriage equality. A father should be able to marry his son and a mother her daughter. All’s fair in la la equality land,innit?Or 2 sisters marry their brothers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Chuck Bird (4,848 comments) says:

    I hope Rodney will be reading Kiwiblog and will respond to me. Rodney it is good that we can disagree on moral issues yet remain civil and respect each others views unlike many of the libertarians on this blog. We have discussed the issue of conscience votes versus binding referenda.

    Conscience votes started under FPP. There was an argument that in theory that MPs were elected to represent their constituents. When we changed to MMP there should have been some adjustments made. Firstly, the Electoral Commission recommendation on Maori seats should have been adopted. Secondly, as list MPs do not have any constituents such highly contentious legislation should have to pass a second hurdle if it passed a final reading. New Zealand no longer has an Upper House so a few binding referenda would be a far cheaper option.

    Louisa Wall believes she would win a referendum and the only reason she opposes one is cost. I do not believe her. If she really believed what she said it would to her advantage to have one. Unlike the libertarians those opposed to her bill while not happy would quietly accept the will of the majority.

    We have had a series of laws passed by a small group of arrogant MPs many suffering from excessive narcissism that would not have got past a binding referendum. The anti-smacking law is the most notable. However, there are others – like the law that allows school counsellor to arrange abortions for underage girls without parents even being notified.

    My question to you Rodney is would you support the following amendment to Wall’s bill if you were in Parliament?

    If this bill passes all its readings, it only comes into force if a majority of people voting at a referendum answer the question: do you support that marriage means the union of 2 people, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity contained in the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2014? in the affirmative

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Other_Andy (2,623 comments) says:

    The daily ‘gay post’.
    Obsessed much DPF?

    By the way, I think we should replace the words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ as well. Let’s call it partner. This way gays don’t feel left out or discriminated against.
    I can use the same strawman argument as Rodney for abolishing these words.
    I also think this piece is an ‘excellent’ argument to introduce polygamy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. rg (210 comments) says:

    Attitudes change over time, I think differently about a lot of things now than I did 25 years ago. Politicians are no different. A bit unreasonable to hoist a politician today with the petard of 25 years ago.

    You are really trying to sell liberalism as the best policy for a plotician on the basis that society will be more liberal in the future. Drinking age poses an interesting question on that? I think you will find many of your blog posts on a wide variety of subjects will read as fairly achaic and outdated in 25 years time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Other_Andy (2,623 comments) says:

    @WD

    “Again, this is precisely what they said about mixed race marriage.”

    Why do you keep on repeating this stupid line?
    Its a logical fallacy and a straw man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. tvb (4,366 comments) says:

    Many straight men practice polygamy including one Ot best friends who refers to his two wives though one might be on the margins for now. It seems to ebb and flow with both. I like and respect both wives though I am never sure who he is going to turn up with. We joke about how his funeral will go with both scrapping over the coffin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. wat dabney (3,726 comments) says:

    Got nothing to do with what “they” said about race. This is gender,very different.

    Translation: The state should enforce my prejudices and not anyone else’s.

    Which was precisely the point I was making.

    Do we continually fight for control of the state so we can use it to impose our views and prejudices on other people, or do we agree to treat everyone equally and allow people to pursue their own happiness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. kowtow (8,326 comments) says:

    tvb

    don’t you mean bigamy?

    There’s a thought. When we redefine marriage to mean whatever it is to mean,why can’t a fellow be married twice at the same time,or a woman for equality’s sake?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. kowtow (8,326 comments) says:

    wat
    the state is being used by a small activist minority to do just what you’re saying @1140.To impose their view of “equality” on society. And the bigger picture is so called human rights legislation that makes opposing that minority view a crime.

    The progressive agenda is large and dangerous to freedom.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. eszett (2,401 comments) says:

    kowtow (2,439) Says:
    August 5th, 2012 at 11:05 am

    eszett,what are you talking about. Divorce has always been around.
    Even Julius Caesar did it.
    Our Lord Jesus Christ said it was OK on grounds of adultery.
    Henry8 famously got divorced.

    I don’t get your point. How can divorce have an impact on the definition of marriage?

    Divorce was around for a few, and then only for men. Only recently was divorce accepted to a wider population. Henry the VIII changed a bloody religion to get divorced

    How can divorce change marriage? Well, instead of til death do us apart……. (Henry took that quite literally in the beginning)

    The availability of divorce has changed how we view marriage quite significantly, who bats an eye these days when someone is on their second or third marriage.

    Anyway, my point is that there is no thousand year tradition of marriage. Marriage meant different things to different people through the centuries. Marriage today is viewed quite differently than it was a hundred years ago, let alone thousand years ago.

    Enabling the 5-7% of the population to join the club of married people is neither a major change nor an upheaval of society. It’s impact will be minor and positive

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Viking2 (11,420 comments) says:

    kowtow (2,440) Says:
    August 5th, 2012 at 11:41 am

    tvb

    don’t you mean bigamy?

    There’s a thought. When we redefine marriage to mean whatever it is to mean,why can’t a fellow be married twice at the same time,or a woman for equality’s sake?

    Good question. Perhgaps you would like to answer it? Some religions already allow it so their are precedents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Viking2 (11,420 comments) says:

    Chuck, spend a whole lot of your own money and test your own biases and attitudes.
    Run you own petition as others have.
    That should tell you the answer to your making up shit about how the electorate would actually vote.
    But ya won’t, you don’t have the courage of your convictions. You are just a noisy vessel with a bad attitude.
    Nothing changes with you as you party hop.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Other_Andy (2,623 comments) says:

    @WD

    “Do we continually fight for control of the state so we can use it to impose our views and prejudices on other people, or do we agree to treat everyone equally and allow people to pursue their own happiness.”

    Firstly, do you treat EVERYONE equally? Even by law people aren’t treated equally.
    Secondly, it looks like YOU think the state needs to be involved to redefine the definition of marriage for people to ‘persue their own happiness’. I think most people (Married, CV’d, single, straight, gay) don’t need the state to redefine this definition to be happy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. mara (772 comments) says:

    It is naive to think that polygamy will not be legalised in the forseeable future. If homosexual marriage is OK because of consent/love/rights etc, why not polygamy on the same grounds? It’s really not a great leap in rationale.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. kowtow (8,326 comments) says:

    eszett @1149

    “enabling to join the club”

    there we have it ,the inclusion mantra. So while on the one hand we are ordered to celebrate diversity we must legislate inclusion .

    I love “progressives”.

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

    Mary Rose (238) Says:
    August 5th, 2012 at 10:04 am

    Must we?

    Again?

    I mean, your blog and all that. But after the Afghanistan post…

    You know what else is offensive? Christians directly praying for other people after disasters and saying it’s a part of God’s plan. It’s like they’re saying they have magic thinking powers. A lot worse than discussing gay rights after an unrelated news article, which is also very heartwrenching.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Shunda barunda (2,982 comments) says:

    Another ridiculous post by DPF on his most talked about topic of all time, talk about wagging the bloody dog.

    Here’s the deal DPF.

    Every single one of the issues you raised in this post has been addressed by the civil unions legislation, gay people are currently equal under NZ law, no one is being persecuted or having their rights trampled on.

    Except heterosexual married couples that is.

    Why is it so bloody difficult for people to understand that allowing homosexuals to be part of a heterosexual institution completely redefines the institution!!

    That is what this is about.

    There is no valid reason to take an exclusive heterosexual institution and hand it over for imminent redefinition, it isn’t ‘gay bashing’ or ‘bigotry’, it just makes no damned sense!!

    However, I accept that marriage has been run into the dirt by heterosexuals and it has been abused and caused abuse, but a loss of the ideals doesn’t mean the ideals are worthless, but I do accept that the walls are full of holes and the institution is in a shambles.

    What will be will be, but lets not ignore the fact that hyper feminists, post modernists, and other ‘ists’ are pretty damned happy about marriage being redefined, and why? because they know damned well what this is really all about.

    Human rights need to be the focus of the state, not redefining traditions.

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

    kowtow (2,441) Says:
    August 5th, 2012 at 10:16 am

    Extraordinary ,the utter collapse in values in a short space of time between 1986 and today.

    It goes to show how effective the “progressive” machine is especially on the younger sheep in the fold.

    Heck, I have friends who started going to Church and then giving their money away in droves. You should see them at Church singing to nobody up in the sky and falling over laughing on the floor as if they’ve been ‘touched’ by some invisible force. Then they start babbling random ‘tongues’ which is basically doing some old school version of incomprehensible rap. Talk about sheep. Jesus even calls his followers sheep.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. mister nui (1,027 comments) says:

    I personally probably lean slightly against same-sex marriage, but that’s my personal beliefs only – and no, I don’t believe in the fairytale that is the bible.

    Anyway, what disturbs me most about this whole debate; is that all the lefty progressives, and our commie media, have seized on this as the greatest crisis that currently afflicts NZ. Is it any wonder that our economy is truly fucked, when the usual suspects treat this as the most important issue of the times.

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

    mister nui (774) Says:
    August 5th, 2012 at 12:19 pm

    I personally probably lean slightly against same-sex marriage, but that’s my personal beliefs only – and no, I don’t believe in the fairytale that is the bible.

    Anyway, what disturbs me most about this whole debate; is that all the lefty progressives, and our commie media, have seized on this as the greatest crisis that currently afflicts NZ. Is it any wonder that our economy is truly fucked, when the usual suspects treat this as the most important issue of the times.

    I would argue that it is only an issue because of those opposed to it. If there was little opposition, it could easily be dealt with as a minor technicality that requires amendment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. mister nui (1,027 comments) says:

    I don’t usually find myself in agreement with shunda, but until his very last sentence, I was nodding my head in agreement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Shunda barunda (2,982 comments) says:

    Anyway, what disturbs me most about this whole debate; is that all the lefty progressives, and our commie media, have seized on this as the greatest crisis that currently afflicts NZ. Is it any wonder that our economy is truly fucked, when the usual suspects treat this as the most important issue of the times.?

    Exactly.

    The fact that it is covered every 5 friggin minutes is actually an argument against it, ie, if it is so right and so many people support it (like DPF would have us believe) then why the hell is so much time spent telling us over , and over, and over again.

    It is unequivocally the greatest non issue of our times, the fact that human rights advocates have devoted so much time, money, and resources to this and not real human rights abuses is absolutely unforgivable and immoral.

    This issue is just one big bloody cliche, it is also an indicator on how irrational and simplistic people have become in debating issues in modern society.

    Homosexuals aren’t the problem, it’s the liberal elite morons that are pushing the buttons and pulling the levers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Other_Andy (2,623 comments) says:

    @mister nui

    But, but, but this is the greatest crisis at the moment.
    We desperately need state intervention.
    After the state, through our polical and enlightened elite, has redefined the definition of marriage, rainbows will appear in the sky, unicorns will frolic in the meadows and everybody will finally be happy.
    You are such a bore…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Andrei (2,570 comments) says:

    It is a strange feeling watching a nation go insane.

    And any voice of rationality shut down by the screech of meaningless slogans.

    I think one of the truly disturbing aspects of this is the fact the not one sitting member of Parliament has the balls to stand up to the baying mob of morons who want to change the fundamental meaning of the institution which is at the heart of civil society for reasons which are in fact malevolent though most are to stupid to see this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Shunda barunda (2,982 comments) says:

    I don’t usually find myself in agreement with shunda, but until his very last sentence, I was nodding my head in agreement.

    The government should just repeal the marriage act, simple, problem solved. Leave weirdos like me to my antiquated traditions and let gay couples enjoy the same legal status and recognition from the state.

    But they won’t, because there is another objective.

    It’s a shame morons like the conservative party leader open their mouths, because conservatives lost this argument because of their stupid attachment of marriage to religion, but the gay lobby certainly didn’t win on their own argument having any logical merit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Viking2 (11,420 comments) says:

    Here’s one whop can’t, won’t make up his mind despite his favourite son being gay. That son by the way has avoided answering the question when asked by his local newspapers.
    Not convienient when one of your own happens to be on the side of right and equality for all.

    Peters has got this one dead right
    MICHAEL LAWS
    Last updated 05:00 05/08/2012

    WINSTON PETERS: If New Zealand is to have a public morality, the public should decide it.

    OPINION: Gay people want to marry. And lesbian Labour MP Louisa Wall’s lucky marble, drawn from the parliamentary ballot, is dedicated to giving them that right.

    For most of us this is a bit of a yawn, hetero and homosexuals alike. It is not an institution that post-modern Kiwis tend to make a great success but we recognise its enduring appeal

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Viking2 (11,420 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda (2,145) Says:
    August 5th, 2012 at 12:36 pm

    I don’t usually find myself in agreement with shunda, but until his very last sentence, I was nodding my head in agreement.

    The government should just repeal the marriage act, simple, problem solved. Leave weirdos like me to my antiquated traditions and let gay couples enjoy the same legal status and recognition from the state.

    But they won’t, because there is another objective.

    It’s a shame morons like the conservative party leader open their mouths, because conservatives lost this argument because of their stupid attachment of marriage to religion, but the gay lobby certainly didn’t win on their own argument having any logical merit.

    So shunda,

    What about those gays that want a mariage and are as well very religious. Or doesn’t that happen in your world?

    Makes me wonder how many Preists would marry their Gay partners if it was allowed and stopp molesting little Catholic boys?
    Cue, Lucia etal will be along to tell us that it just doesn’t happen and they are forgiven their sins at confession. What a fucking joke.

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

    The fact that it is covered every 5 friggin minutes is actually an argument against it, ie, if it is so right and so many people support it (like DPF would have us believe) then why the hell is so much time spent telling us over , and over, and over again.

    It is unequivocally the greatest non issue of our times, the fact that human rights advocates have devoted so much time, money, and resources to this and not real human rights abuses is absolutely unforgivable and immoral.

    This issue is just one big bloody cliche, it is also an indicator on how irrational and simplistic people have become in debating issues in modern society.

    Actually the time spent on discussing gay rights is nothing compared to the hours people spend going to Church to talk about an invisible fairy tale that has zero application to modern society. Very irrational and simplistic people there. The reason so much time is spent on discussing gay rights is because there are still a lot of people in society and in power who feel like it’s something significant to be opposing and prevent it from being a quick, technical amendment to legislation. As you said – if civil unions are the same as marriages, what’s the big issue with simply changing the name of civil union to marriage, just as we change the words ‘niggers’ or ‘slaves’ that were used in the past to ordinary ‘citizens’.

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

    Andrei (1,348) Says:
    August 5th, 2012 at 12:30 pm

    It is a strange feeling watching a congregation go insane.

    And any voice of rationality shut down by the screech of meaningless slogans.

    I think one of the truly disturbing aspects of this is the fact the not one sitting member of Elders has the balls to stand up to the baying mob of morons who want to change the fundamental meaning of the world which is at the heart of civil society for reasons which are in fact malevolent though most are to stupid to see this.

    A picture is worth a thousand words:

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2c1qIVdUfP4/TtZFd26MCTI/AAAAAAAAHjk/VwZVCgWphlI/s400/megachurch_calvary-chapel%255B1%255D.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. thedavincimode (6,719 comments) says:

    Why do I get the sense that if anyone contemplating swallowing the xtian pill happened upon this blog they might ask themselves if all this peace and love, turn the other cheek, loving G** business, might just not be all it’s cracked up to be?

    Another bad week for him/her/it on the PR front.

    When the homosexual marriage thing came up, my immediate response was fine, if you aren’t equal then you should be, but don’t call it marriage because it isn’t. That reaction reflected my own ill-considered kneejerk response. It didn’t reflect marriage in the way I thought about it as an institution whereby heterosexual relationships are placed upon a quasi-contractual basis that is perhaps more reflective of a personal commitment.

    And then, through the thick fog of Christian bile, a comment seeped through to the effect that marriage as an institution means different things to different cultures. A perfectly obvious point that should have occurred to me, but I excuse myself on the basis that I wasn’t particularly interested and didn’t become so until the avalanche of bigotry became sufficient to lead me to take notice. That then lead me into questioning why the state has any business interferring in personal relationships at all (acknowledging of course that society generally has moved on from the old homo=jail times) which lead me in turn to wondering why we don’t permit polygamy and we criminalise bigamy. Now the stunted canary has tidied up the history on this and I thank him for that.

    So here we are, with me shaking my head wondering why it is that a bunch of god-botherers are doing their level best to present the same rabid fascist approach to this issue that they accuse the homosexual community of. I’m not a potential customer just now (intending to adopt the deathbed confession strategy), but I can’t see that this debate is assisting sales.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. wat dabney (3,726 comments) says:

    kowtow,

    the state is being used by a small activist minority to do just what you’re saying @1140.To impose their view of “equality” on society.

    You are confusing two contradictory uses of the word ‘equality': equality before the law is an entirely different matter – the polar opposite in fact – to the left’s equality agenda you refer to.

    Those of us on the right are firm advocates of equality before the law.

    The comparison with mixed-race marriages is entirely apt, because there is no substantive difference between that and gay marriage. To be otherwise you would have to demonstrate that gay marriage is harmful to others.

    It isn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. wiseowl (869 comments) says:

    I’m with Shunda.

    You should send your 12.11 pm to Mr Key.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. mister nui (1,027 comments) says:

    Very well said davinci at 12.57. You sum up my sentiments perfectly. The god botherers are not helping one little bit to preserve the institution of marriage – in fact, their mutterings will serve to be its very downfall, to the detriment of all of us who want to keep the sanctity of marriage, between a man and a woman.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Other_Andy (2,623 comments) says:

    “The comparison with mixed-race marriages is entirely apt, because there is no substantive difference between that and gay marriage”

    Sigh…….
    No it isn’t.
    Marriage is defined as a ‘partnership’ between a man and a woman.
    Nothing to do with race, ethnicity or religion, as long as it is between a man and a woman.

    And if there is no difference between ‘gays’ and ‘straights’, why are we discussing this in the first place?

    “Those of us on the right are firm advocates of equality before the law.”

    You keep on repeating this line as well but still aren’t able to point out what the inequality actually is.
    Apart from the word and the definition, what is unequal before the law when comparing Civil Union and Marriage?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. PaulL (5,971 comments) says:

    So, not that interested in joining the debate – such as it is – largely because it seems to depend on people shouting loudly that it’s evil and that it will ruin their marriage if some other people get married. You know, the same way that my car is devalued if the neighbour has a car too and his is different than mine.

    But, for the record:
    1. I agree strongly with you DPF that this will probably happen. I think that most people agree with me. I realise that me thinking this doesn’t make it right – but equally the conviction of some on this thread that everybody agrees with them is questionable.

    2. I have quite a bit of sympathy for Chuck’s suggestion that this bill be amended to just propose a referendum which need be passed so as to make this binding. It means parliament could avoid talking about this again – basically every 5 years or so we can have a referendum to see if the population of NZ want to change. Perhaps with every second election? It would park the question of costs, and avoid us wasting parliamentary time on it – pressure groups could buy ads and run debates or whatever, but politicians could just ignore it. It’d also make it easier for a lot of politicians to do what is right – because they could just say they’re following the will of the people.

    3. I still assert that the right way to deal with this is to remove the marriage act, and just keep the civil unions act. And personally, I’d extend the civil unions act to allow any grouping of consenting adults who would like to create a contractual relationship that:
    – prescribes that they support each other and act as next of kin
    – defines what happens if that relationship were to end
    – provides for automatic inheritance rights in the absence of a will
    can do so. The government is just providing a mechanism for creating a legal contract, it should have no right to question the reasons why people might like to form such a relationship (maybe for procreation, maybe for recreation, maybe just long-time friends who want to share assets).

    Further, I’d amend the adoption act and similar legislation to just consider the stability and suitability of any family relationship in place (which doesn’t today have to involve a marriage). This might not even be an amendment anyway – I think gay couples can adopt today? Certainly the marriage act isn’t the thing stopping them if they cannot.

    Finally, I’d then allow people to use any particular celebration format they wish to commemorate their union. This might include a church wedding and therefore a marriage. But marriages would be conferred by the religion and/or celebrant, not by the state, so nobody would have anything to argue about. This is essentially the solution in France and seems to work well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. wat dabney (3,726 comments) says:

    Marriage is defined as a ‘partnership’ between a man and a woman.

    Well quite, and it is this definition which the proposed law is intended to change.

    All adults should be treated equally before the law.

    Put another way, you don’t get to use the state as a vehicle to impose your prejudices on everyone else.

    Because we know where that ends.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. PaulL (5,971 comments) says:

    Exactly where is it written that marriage is between a man and a woman? I’m pretty sure that many people used to think that it was written that marriage was between a man and a woman _of the same race_. So excuse me for doubting again this time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Other_Andy (2,623 comments) says:

    @wd

    Well quite, and it is this definition which the proposed law is intended to change.
    All adults should be treated equally before the law.
    Put another way, you don’t get to use the state as a vehicle to impose your prejudices on everyone else.
    Because we know where that ends.

    So the state should change the definition by law because using the state as a vehicle to impose certain views is wrong.
    Rrrrrrrright……
    You do irony very well.

    An opinion about the meaning of a word is not ‘prejudice’.
    It is prejudice to accuse me of prejudice for having a opinion about the meaning of a word.

    What about answering my question about that perceived ‘inequality’ before the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Ryan Sproull (7,101 comments) says:

    Prejudice is exactly that: pre-judging.

    There is certainly some of that from the anti-marriage-equality crowd as a whole – massive assumptions about people on the basis of their sexual preference.

    But believing that homosexuality is sinful in the terms of your religious view is not prejudice. It’s postjudice or just a plain judgement. Simply opposing marriage equality does not make someone prejudiced.

    In fact, to assume that someone who believes that it is sinful to engage in homosexual sex or love is therefore prejudiced is… prejudicial.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. wat dabney (3,726 comments) says:

    So the state should change the definition by law because using the state as a vehicle to impose certain views is wrong.

    Yes. I think you’ve got it now.

    What about answering my question about that perceived ‘inequality’ before the law.

    You’re refering to the fact that gays can’t marry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    Other_Andy (2,005) Says:
    August 5th, 2012 at 1:18 pm
    “The comparison with mixed-race marriages is entirely apt, because there is no substantive difference between that and gay marriage”

    Sigh…….
    No it isn’t.
    Marriage is defined as a ‘partnership’ between a man and a woman.
    Nothing to do with race, ethnicity or religion, as long as it is between a man and a woman.

    Maybe the good folks at First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs in Mississippi didn’t get the memo.

    They seem to think it has a lot to do with race and ethnicity. Love that christian compassion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Andrei (1,348) Says:

    August 5th, 2012 at 12:30 pm
    It is a strange feeling watching a nation go insane.

    ——————————————–

    And yet the electricity is still on, the water is still running, the streets aren’t full of rubbish, the earth continues to rotate on its axis and the sun rises and sets every day as it always does.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Other_Andy (2,623 comments) says:

    @luke

    Great example Luke.
    Some muslims haven’t got the message either.

    http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=2267&CATE=10

    But again, “in casibus non exceptis”

    @WD

    “Yes. I think you’ve got it now.”

    So using the state to re-define marriage is right…
    But using the state to define marriage is wrong…
    But after re-defining it, the state defining it differently would be right again.
    That is …unless you decide that this definition would be wrong.

    Yep, I have got it….

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

    wondering why it is that a bunch of god-botherers are doing their level best to present the same rabid fascist approach to this issue that they accuse the homosexual community of

    Rabid facist approach? So suggesting that the term marriage remain for hetrosexual couples makes me a rabid and facist? I guess Mrs KK must also be a fabid facist by believing the sign “Women” over the bathroom door actually means blokes are not permitted. The world is apparentlly full of rabid facists…

    This debate has nothing to do with homosexual couples really wanting to use the term married, certainly none that I know do. It has everything to do with haughty liberals congratulating themselves that those who really value the institution have been forced to give it up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Pete George (23,481 comments) says:

    It has everything to do with haughty liberals congratulating themselves that those who really value the institution have been forced to give it up.

    I really value the institution of marriage and am not being forced to give up anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Mary Rose (238) Says:

    August 5th, 2012 at 10:04 am
    Must we?

    Again?

    I mean, your blog and all that. But after the Afghanistan post…

    ————————-

    The two issues are tangentially related. Afghanistan is a conservative wet dream: traditional values, women in their place, homosexuals hanging by a noose… conservatives call this “civilization”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. eszett (2,401 comments) says:

    Andrei (1,348) Says:
    August 5th, 2012 at 12:30 pm

    It is a strange feeling watching a nation go insane.

    And any voice of rationality shut down by the screech of meaningless slogans.

    Hilarious!
    When was the last time you uttered anything remotely rational on this blog, andrei?

    And speaking of meaningless slogans, you are quite the master at them.

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

    When the church “owned” the marriage process, it owned the right to define the term. The church ceded ownership of the concept to the state – a long time ago, and willingly. Thus, “marriage” is now a secular concept. The state has a duty to treat everyone equally and parliament can define that equality any way it wants. This is going to mean that the union of marriage will be open to any two consenting adults.

    To put it another way, established religion gave away the term already. Religious types can’t complain about what the new owners do with it if they (or their forebears) didn’t complain about giving it away in the first place. Perhaps the religious establishment felt that it could strengthen their version of “marriage” by allowing it to be imbued with state power, but that was a miscalculation in the long term.

    Long story short, the church could’ve retained “marriage” much like they’ve retained other terms/concepts such as baptism. In such a hypothetical, the state would only issue “civil unions” – and would presumably do so to any relationship it registered without religious complaint. But that didn’t happen. I suggest people get over it and perhaps lobby their church to invent a new word for “religious marriage” and apply that term any way they wish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Other_Andy (2,623 comments) says:

    @eszett

    “And speaking of meaningless slogans, you are quite the master at them.”

    I think both sides of the debate are doing a great job.
    I’ll call it a draw.

    Let’s have a binding referendum.
    But then, that would be something our political masters an intellectual elite would never allow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. eszett (2,401 comments) says:

    Why is it so bloody difficult for people to understand that allowing homosexuals to be part of a heterosexual institution completely redefines the institution!!

    Why is it so bloody difficult for you to understand that it doesn’t. It’s a minor change, it’s extending a right to a small amount of people.

    Even if homosexuals start marrying at the same rate as the rest of us, that will mean about 5-7% of marriages will be same sex. How will that impact the 93-95%?

    No at all!!

    How does that “completely redefine” the institution?

    It stops excluding a fraction of our population which it excludes for no good reason. Big fucking deal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Ryan Sproull (7,101 comments) says:

    I will not be less married to my wife as a result of more consenting adults in New Zealand being able to do the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. eszett (2,401 comments) says:

    O_A, if you and Chucky want to have a referendum, nothing stops you from initiating one.

    Meanwhile we can stick to the democratic process that we have.
    We have a very public discourse and the fact that it is a conscience vote makes it very transparent and democratic.

    I don’t think referenda are a good means to resolve any kind of questions in a democracy, and especially minor issues like this one do not warrant a referendum. Just because you are on the loosing side does not warrant to shout “referendum” all the time.

    And before you say it, I do NOT support the green initiative for a referendum on asset sales, I think the very same arguments apply there as they do in this case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    eszett,

    Ummmm… you’re forgetting one important point silly… god’s wrath!

    The floods are coming. That’s the big fucking deal. Don’t worry though Lee01 is working on a new ark.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. eszett (2,401 comments) says:

    Don’t worry though Lee01 is working on a new ark.

    But wouldn’t that mean that they would have to legalise incestuous relationships.
    Otherwise how would they repopulate the earth?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Other_Andy (2,623 comments) says:

    @eszett

    Jeez, no need to get your knickers in a twist.

    “Meanwhile we can stick to the democratic process that we have. We have a very public discourse and the fact that it is a conscience vote makes it very transparent and democratic.”

    Hahahaha…
    Or were you serious?
    Politicians have a conscience and the plebs don’t?

    “I don’t think referenda are a good means to resolve any kind of questions in a democracy, and especially minor issues like this one do not warrant a referendum.”

    Tell that to the Swiss. Seems to be working there.

    “Just because you are on the loosing side does not warrant to shout “referendum” all the time.”

    I am on nobody’s side. Just like to hear some well thought of arguments apart from the usual “Big fucking deal”.
    ‘All the time’ is a bit of a hyperbole after suggesting this twice don’t you think?

    “And before you say it, I do NOT support the green initiative for a referendum on asset sales, I think the very same arguments apply there as they do in this case.”

    The argument for a referendum on Asset sales is the same as a referendum on gay marriage?
    Government policy, policy mandate by election……
    I think you are getting a bit confused.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. eszett (2,401 comments) says:

    Speaking of meaningless slogans:

    Politicians have a conscience and the plebs don’t?

    Do you actually know what a conscience vote means, O_A? Just to help you out (I have highlighted the important part):

    A conscience vote or free vote is a type of vote in a legislative body where legislators are allowed to vote according to their own personal conscience rather than according to an official line set down by their political party.

    Tell that to the Swiss. Seems to be working there.

    Actually, it doesn’t. It’s quiet a myth that it is working very well. One of the reason why no other country has adopted such an extreme version of direct democracy. Because of the number of referenda and the low participation in them, they are highjacked by demagogues, with the usual results.

    The argument for a referendum on Asset sales is the same as a referendum on gay marriage?

    Yes, actually they are. The pros and cons of having a referendum do not change because of the topic of the referendum.

    The mandate argument is a particularly weak one and doesn’t stop having CIR. The reason why National are opposed to it is because it could easily go against them and therefore destroy their mandate argument.

    Nevertheless a referendum on both topics is neither warranted nor sensible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. eszett (2,401 comments) says:

    ‘All the time’ is a bit of a hyperbole after suggesting this twice don’t you think?

    I was speaking generally and including the green initiative, not just relating it to this discussion or your specific call for a referendum.

    My point was, just because you are on the losing a political discussion does not warrant a call for a referendum. That goes for the greens as well as the the anti-gay marriage crowd.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. kowtow (8,326 comments) says:

    wehana and Afghanistan a conservatives wet dream…..

    I beg to differ,those are not traditional values they are primitire values
    and

    I reckon it’s a lefty wet dream. Lots of homosexual sex,totally dependant on wealth redistribution , led by an autocratic elite, and no personal responsibility for their lot.

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

    It matters not if the vast majority of gays do not want to marry….if only one couple do then that’s enough….their right to do so is not dependent on some majority desire or veto. Human rights rights are about individuals doing what they may in spite of the whim of any majority…that’s their point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Other_Andy (2,623 comments) says:

    @eszett

    “My point was, just because you are on the losing a political discussion does not warrant a call for a referendum. That goes for the greens as well as the the anti-gay marriage crowd.”

    Losing and winning?
    I didn’t know this was a match.

    Any well reasoned argument why the state should change the definition of marriage?
    Or is it
    a. Just for the fuck of it?
    b. Why not?
    c. To piss off those who are against it.
    d. Because other countries do it.
    e. Because some gays want to.
    f. Because it doesn’t affect me.
    g. Because I think we should.
    h. All of the above
    Those are the ‘arguments’ I have heard so far in favour of ‘gay marriage’.

    By the way.
    Good luck eszett, I hope you win because ‘winning’ this seems important for you.

    Just one question.
    When we have redefined the meaning of marriage to mean the combination of 2 or more people, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity (my apologies if I left something out).
    What will the outcome-result of this be?
    What will change?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. wat dabney (3,726 comments) says:

    If Colin Craig can marry when he “chooses” to be straight, why exactly should he be disallowed if he “chooses” to be gay?

    He is in every other respect exactly the same person as before.

    He just farts in a slightly lower key.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    I reckon Colin Craig can marry whoever he wants, but his kids should be in protective custody and he should be sterilised.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. eszett (2,401 comments) says:

    Any well reasoned argument why the state should change the definition of marriage?
    Or is it
    a. Just for the fuck of it?
    b. Why not?
    c. To piss off those who are against it.
    d. Because other countries do it.
    e. Because some gays want to.
    f. Because it doesn’t affect me.
    g. Because I think we should.
    h. All of the above
    Those are the ‘arguments’ I have heard so far in favour of ‘gay marriage’.

    Really? You have heard?
    Have you read Rodney’s column or DPFs post in favour of same sex marriage? Pretty well reasoned arguments there.
    Could it be the case that you do not want to hear or read any arguments for it.

    I have read many arguments against it, only very, very few of them of them well reasoned or rational.

    Also changing the definition of marriage is not the same as redefining it.
    Including same sex couple will slightly change the meaning of marriage by making a few more eligible, it will certainly not “completely redefine” it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Rodney Hide (60 comments) says:

    Hi Chuck

    I wouldn’t put it to referendum. I always think that’s a cop out. We have a representative democracy. And an all-powerful Parliament. For better or for worse.

    Of course, conscience or free votes were the norm. It was Richard Seddon who changed that. To be endorsed by the Liberal Party ahead of an election you had to sign up to vote always with the party. That’s how he came to be King Dick.

    But on tough issues like liquor laws he would allow free votes. That was to stop the party tearing itself apart. That’s the reason to this day.

    The free vote became known as a conscience vote in the 1970s.

    The ACT caucus always had a free vote. The only exception was when in government. We unanimously agreed to give confidence and supply.

    It’s simply not practical for the larger parties to allow free votes as a rule.

    At the end of the day our system works rough enough that MPs vote as our representatives. We get our say once every three years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. eszett (2,401 comments) says:

    Jesus, the world IS coming to an end.
    Twice in row I agree with Rodney. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Akaroa (552 comments) says:

    A propos of nothing, I seem to remember that back in the day – (well back in the day, that is) – there was on the Statute – (in the UK at least ), an offence that was described in the Act as – and I quote – ‘The abominable crime of buggery’.

    Pretty full on, don’t you think?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Other_Andy (2,623 comments) says:

    @eszett

    “Have you read Rodney’s column or DPFs post in favour of same sex marriage? Pretty well reasoned arguments there.”

    Just read it again.
    Sorry can’t find them.
    Could you list them?

    “I have read many arguments against it, only very, very few of them of them well reasoned or rational.”

    You turn it around. With any law, those who want to change it should come up with the valid arguments why it is necessary.

    “Also changing the definition of marriage is not the same as redefining it.”

    If you change the core, you redefine it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. wiseowl (869 comments) says:

    with the change to MMP Rodney the conscience vote has new meaning.
    The possibilities for the ballot box are endless with minor parties and their MP’s able to put up more and more outrageous Bills.

    I don’t believe any MP in parliament has a better ability or is more qualified to vote on these matters than a taxpayer has, who put them in there.

    It is more like an abuse of the democratic system.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. kowtow (8,326 comments) says:

    Rodney says “we (the electorate) get our say every 3 years.

    Not good enough when there is a war on tradition and long accepted practise. Politicians are ramming change down our necks and then wonder why we the peole are getting more cynical and disengaged.

    The Greens drving the smacking issue was agood example and then parliament ignored a referendum.Tossers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Ryan Sproull (7,101 comments) says:

    Tradition is not necessarily good, Kowtow. As has been pointed out plenty of times before, racial discrimination and women being excluded from voting were both tradition once.

    And how is this ramming a change down your neck? If you’re not a gay Kiwi wanting to marry another gay Kiwi, how does it affect your life?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. eszett (2,401 comments) says:

    Just read it again.
    Sorry can’t find them.

    If that’s the case, O_A, you are either trolling or if not, it wouldn’t help you listing them again.
    Clearly if you cannot see the arguments in either Rodney’s article or DPF’s post yesterday, you deliberately do not want to hear them.

    You turn it around. With any law, those who want to change it should come up with the valid arguments why it is necessary.

    As I said, there are well reasoned arguments for (though you seem to have some trouble with them) and many not so well reasoned against.

    If you change the core, you redefine it.

    How could it possibly be that giving the right to 5-7% of the population to participate in marriage be changing the core of marriage?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. BlairM (2,321 comments) says:

    It’s not a human right to demand the government give your relationship an official label, complete with certificate, that redefines a social institution going back thousands of years. Gay marriage is currently legal. It is just not officially recognised by the State. I do a lot of things in my life that I am not awarded an official document for by the State, but I don’t consider my human rights maligned just because the government won’t recognise my sexual fetish for women in tartan skirts and cream blouses. This is because they are not maligned in any way. So it is with gay couples.

    I will never be a Dame of the Realm. I can only be a Sir. The government gives people different titles according to their sex, but it is not against my human rights for the government to deny me the title of Dame because I have a penis. So it is ridiculous for gay couples to claim they are discriminated against because the government calls their coupling a Civil Union rather than a Marriage.

    No, if this passes it won’t be the end of the world. It certainly won’t affect my life, or even have as big an effect on society as some people claim. But to me it’s the principle of the thing – a strawberry is not a vegetable, and a gay couple cannot form a marriage. I don’t see it as a bad thing. If we are doing this, it is simply to make gay people feel better about themselves, and frankly that is not the role of the State. If we are going to pander to minority opinions in society like that, then my opinion is equal to any others. And I have to say that I never had a strong opinion either way until this debate started, but having seen the disgraceful demagoguery of people like Cameron Slater and so many others on this debate and the Christian-baiting that goes on as well, I have been sufficiently appalled to want to put my foot down and say it should not happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    ‘It’s not a human right to demand the government give your relationship an official label’

    I quite agree Blair. Repeal the Marriage Act and get the government out of regulating personal relationships altogether.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Ryan Sproull (7,101 comments) says:

    ‘It’s not a human right to demand the government give your relationship an official label’

    I quite agree Blair. Repeal the Marriage Act and get the government out of regulating personal relationships altogether.

    Hear hear!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. wiseowl (869 comments) says:

    Well stated BlairM.
    Agree 100%
    But will any MP stop long enough to think about this rationally.

    Too influenced by the fashion of the day methinks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. chiz (1,135 comments) says:

    flipper:Ergo, can you direct me to reliable research please (not PC crap, assertions or pleadings, but scientific data), that supports the thesis that homosexuality (male and female) is a natural state/option for humans?

    Its not clear what you are asking for here. Are you asking for evidence that there is a biological origin for homosexuality rather than a psychological one, or for something else?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Fletch (6,296 comments) says:

    DPF, I have to ask, what makes you so sure they were wrong 25 years ago, and are right now? Or were they right then and we are wrong now?
    And based on what? The current whim of society? Following the crowd? Agreement of opinion is nothing more than an ad populum fallacy.

    The point is, if you don’t have a moral base to work from, you’re likely to flip-flop ‘evolve’ based on the current whims of society.

    It must be tough to have on your record that you voted for consensual sex between two adults to remain a criminal offence.

    If the are of the same gender, it is physically impossible for them to have “sex”. I guess politicians were a bit brighter 25 years ago.

    Seriously though, I think it is disingenuous to play the hindsight game and compare with what people did 25 years ago. Many years ago, smoking was thought of as OK, and even good for you – they had ads with doctors recommending it.
    Also, years ago, abortion was a crime and immoral. I could just as easily say that I think people will look back at us in 25 years time, and be horrified at how women could kill off their unborn children and call it “health care”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. BlairM (2,321 comments) says:

    I quite agree Blair. Repeal the Marriage Act and get the government out of regulating personal relationships altogether.

    I think you can make a good case for saying that the status quo is the correct situation, since the government is only following the traditional definition of marriage, not proactively defining it. But overall, I agree – in fact, I purposefully got a civil union instead of a marriage for that very reason – I think it’s God, the Church, and a ceremony with me and my spouse in front of my peers where I make solemn vows which makes me married, not the government. Governments should protect people’s rights in any relationship, gay or straight, but it is not government’s role to define those relationships or give them special names on bits of paper.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. eszett (2,401 comments) says:

    It’s not a human right to demand the government give your relationship an official label,

    No, but it is a human right to demand that the government doesn’t discriminate against you( at least not for no good reason.)
    Why does the government give some people their relationship an official label and others not?

    So it is ridiculous for gay couples to claim they are discriminated against because the government calls their coupling a Civil Union rather than a Marriage.

    Heterosexual couples can have a civil union, however gays cannot marry.

    Why bring different labels to the same thing (beside, civil union is not quite the same legally as marriage).

    Why not call interracial marriage something different?
    It is discriminatory, the same way it would be discriminatory to say mixed race couples can have a civil union, but not marry.

    And I have to say that I never had a strong opinion either way until this debate started, but having seen the disgraceful demagoguery of people like Cameron Slater and so many others on this debate and the Christian-baiting that goes on as well, I have been sufficiently appalled to want to put my foot down and say it should not happen.

    Funny, appalled by demagoguery on one side but not the other? How come?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Ryan Sproull (7,101 comments) says:

    Also, years ago, abortion was a crime and immoral. I could just as easily say that I think people will look back at us in 25 years time, and be horrified at how women could kill off their unborn children and call it “health care”.

    It’s entirely possible, Fletch.

    I wouldn’t call it a whim just because it’s changeable, though. I think the word “whim” already has a meaning, which doesn’t fit here. The moral values of a culture or society usually change quite gradually.

    As an aside, if you think it’s galling to believe that every abortion is a murder, imagine believing that every animal killed for food is a murder. I’ve often thought that anti-abortionists and animal-rightsers should sit down and commiserate on their sense of frustration and despair.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. kowtow (8,326 comments) says:

    ryan sproul @525

    So if something does not have a direct bearing on my life I must shut up and ignore what is happening in parliament and society at large. Well that’s a novel way of closing down debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Ryan Sproull (7,101 comments) says:

    So if something does not have a direct bearing on my life I must shut up and ignore what is happening in parliament and society at large. Well that’s a novel way of closing down debate.

    By all means, debate. Just don’t debate on the basis that something which has no direct bearing on your life is “being shoved down your neck”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. eszett (2,401 comments) says:

    Fletch (3,164) Says:
    August 5th, 2012 at 5:51 pm

    DPF, I have to ask, what makes you so sure they were wrong 25 years ago, and are right now? Or were they right then and we are wrong now?
    And based on what? The current whim of society? Following the crowd? Agreement of opinion is nothing more than an ad populum fallacy.

    I would say that 25 years ago, those who voted for the legislation where NOT following the crowd and not following the current whim of society. Quite the contrary.

    Funny how you say you should follow every whim of society, but also want a referendum. How does that fit?

    The point is, if you don’t have a moral base to work from, you’re likely to flip-flop ‘evolve’ based on the current whims of society.

    But they do have a moral base and a very good one. It doesn’t necessarily rely on some obscure books written two thousand years ago.

    We have reason, knowledge, science, discussion, philosophy. logic to base our morals on which is a far better basis and has been served as well indeed. In fact most people, religious ones included use this. The religious one just take the passages that fit in their holy books accordingly, while ignoring the barbaric nonsense surrounding it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Other_Andy (2,623 comments) says:

    @eszett

    “If that’s the case, O_A, you are either trolling or if not, it wouldn’t help you listing them again. Clearly if you cannot see the arguments in either Rodney’s article or DPF’s post yesterday, you deliberately do not want to hear them.”

    No, I can’t find them because there are none in the article above. I can’t list them and neither can you because they are not there. Clearly? Give me just one reasoned argument for gay marriage in the above article.

    “How could it possibly be that giving the right to 5-7% of the population to participate in marriage be changing the core of marriage?”

    The core meaning of marriage…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Fletch (6,296 comments) says:

    As has been pointed out several times, if marriage is redefined, it will cease to have the same meaning it does now. Perhaps that is the aim of those who wish to change it – as i said, it is a push from above, not from the populace in general, and not from gays.

    If a motor vehicle license is changed to include boats and aircraft, is it still a motor vehicle license? I think it would lose that meaning. Stephen Lawhead has a very good quote from one of his books –

    “To see evil and call it good, mocks God. Worse, it makes goodness meaningless. A word without meaning is an abomination, for when the word passes beyond understanding the very thing the word stands for passes out of the world and cannot be recalled.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Ryan Sproull (7,101 comments) says:

    Fletch,

    Man, how much do you love the state that you rely on it to define everything for you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. chiz (1,135 comments) says:

    Fletch:As has been pointed out several times, if marriage is redefined, it will cease to have the same meaning it does now.

    Polls suggest that the majority of people in this country have already changed their understanding of what marriage means so all that will happen if the law is changed is that the law will reflect what most people understand the word to mean. So its meaning has already changed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Fletch (6,296 comments) says:

    We have reason, knowledge, science, discussion, philosophy. logic to base our morals on which is a far better basis and has been served as well indeed.

    I don’t agree.

    Reason, science and logic say that a male sexual organ and a female sexual organ are complimentary and function together. Even an idiot can see this complementarity. Reason, science and logic say that the anus is not a sexual organ, and even someone not very intelligent will tell you it is the “wrong hole” to try and perform sexual intercourse. To try and base marriage (the building block of society) on this “relationship” is ludicrous.

    Even a child knows which end of an extension cord to plug into a socket, and that it’s foolish to try plugging in the other end.

    So much for your “science” theory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. eszett (2,401 comments) says:

    give me just one reasoned argument for gay marriage in the above article.

    Once homosexual acts were decriminalised in 1986 the inability of homosexuals to marry was an obvious anomaly and inequality.Homosexuals can have consensual sex; they just can’t get married to do so.

    How could it possibly be that giving the right to 5-7% of the population to participate in marriage be changing the core meaning of marriage?

    And how is the “core meaning of marriage” different from the “core of marriage?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Fletch (6,296 comments) says:

    Polls suggest that the majority of people in this country have already changed their understanding of what marriage means so all that will happen if the law is changed is that the law will reflect what most people understand the word to mean. So its meaning has already changed.

    Well, judging by the Chick-Fil-A turnout in the U.S with different groups supporting different sides only days apart, the general public thinks very differently than “polls” suggest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. chiz (1,135 comments) says:

    Fletch – learn some basic statistics. Self-selecting samples are not a valid basis for determining what the bulk of people think. That what properly conducted polls are for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Fletch (6,296 comments) says:

    Fletch,

    Man, how much do you love the state that you rely on it to define everything for you?

    The State is only affirming what is already there.
    Gravity is already there as well, even though it’s meaning is technically defined as 9.8 m/s2 on Earth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. chiz (1,135 comments) says:

    Reason, science and logic say that the anus is not a sexual organ

    And yet many men find that stimulation of the prostate gland via anal intercourse can be pleasurable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Fletch (6,296 comments) says:

    Fletch – learn some basic statistics. Self-selecting samples are not a valid basis for determining what the bulk of people think. That what properly conducted polls are for.

    Chiz, what does it matter what the bulk of people think?

    Let me ask you – what if the Nazis had won the Second World War. And Hitler ruled the world and everyone was forced to adopt his Aryan Nazi policy/religion, and those that didn’t were shot or imprisoned. Gradually, the “bulk of people” came to accept Aryanism as the norm. Would it still be moral in your eyes? Just because more people than not followed it?

    It’s called an Ad Populum fallacy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Fletch (6,296 comments) says:

    And yet many men find that stimulation of the prostate gland via anal intercourse can be pleasurable.

    But they still know they’re only messing around and they know it is really the sewer line of the body.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Ryan Sproull (7,101 comments) says:

    The penis is a bit of a sewer line too, you know. Unless you know something about urine that I don’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. eszett (2,401 comments) says:

    Fletch, firstly you are again obsessed by anal sex. I wonder why

    What do you think of masturbation and oral sex? Just curious, as hands and mouth are obviously “the wrong hole?”
    Should they be outlawed as well. What about anal sex between heterosexual couples?

    And by your definition lesbians are okay, as long as they don’t engage in anal sex.

    Reason, science and logic say that there is far more to human sexuality and relationships than simple sex act of sticking your penis into a vagina. Or is that all there is to your sex and love life?

    Reason, science and logic tell us that there is nothing wrong with homosexual people at all and they are just like the rest of us, just with a different preference.

    Reason, science and logic tell us to discriminate on basis of sexual orientation is wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. BlairM (2,321 comments) says:

    it is a human right to demand that the government doesn’t discriminate against you( at least not for no good reason.)
    Why does the government give some people their relationship an official label and others not?

    Because the nature of the relationships are different. Nor is it discrimination. It’s closer to the sort of discrimination where we don’t let women become All Blacks, but it’s barely even that. It would be discrimination if a gay man could not dump his boyfriend and marry a woman, but that is not the case. It’s a classification, called marriage, which has to be between a man and a woman. Falling outside the classification does not constitute discrimination, since it doesn’t affect your life in any substantial way.

    Why not call interracial marriage something different?
    It is discriminatory, the same way it would be discriminatory to say mixed race couples can have a civil union, but not marry.

    Because it’s still between a man and a woman, which is what marriage is. A mixed race straight couple can argue that what they are doing is exactly the same thing. You can argue that a gay relationship is equal to a straight one, and in terms of how society should treat them I agree, but I think it’s a lot harder to argue that a gay relationship is the same as a straight one. Being gay is based on behaviour – you’re attracted to the same sex and form relationships with them, not the opposite sex. You’re acting differently and doing a completely different thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    Many hetro couples also practice anal sex, although I only have as a giver, and it was HER request, not mine.

    As Fletch says, “even someone not very intelligent will tell you it is the “wrong hole” to try and perform sexual intercourse.” and yet I am sure he kisses his wife, but I’m guessing he’d find going down “icky”. But I bet he enjoys a good knob polish. There is an incredible array of sexual experience to be had, if only you’d open your cheeks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. eszett (2,401 comments) says:

    Gravity is already there as well, even though it’s meaning is technically defined as 9.8 m/s2 on Earth.

    Actually, that is not the definition of gravity, but a measurement of gravity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. chiz (1,135 comments) says:

    what does it matter what the bulk of people think?

    You were the one who claimed that the Chick fil-A turnout invalidated the polls and somehow suggested that the majority of people might in fact support your position. I was pointing out that your reasoning was invalid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Fletch (6,296 comments) says:

    Reason, science and logic tell us that there is nothing wrong with homosexual people at all and they are just like the rest of us, just with a different preference.

    Reason, science and logic tell us to discriminate on basis of sexual orientation is wrong.

    You could argue also that reason, science, and logic say the same about those attracted to minors or animals. They just have a different preference. After all, in 25 years, sex with minors will probably be normal and legal (especially with the way were going now).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    You’re acting differently and doing a completely different thing.

    No, in all the cases you mention, what is happening is an expression love, an emotion quite lacking in the stunted antis I think.

    God forbid you ever have to deal with a son or daughter coming out. You’d probably off them for your dishonour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Ryan Sproull (7,101 comments) says:

    Science tells us nothing about morality. Science is about what is. Morality is about oughts. You can’t derive an ought from an is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. wat dabney (3,726 comments) says:

    So what have we learned? Married women must be banned from practising anal sex, on the same grounds as gay marriage is banned.

    Oh dear. Where will it end once you start using the state to enforce your personal morals on others?

    And what happens when others control the state and turn it against you? Will you be so keen then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Fletch (6,296 comments) says:

    The penis is a bit of a sewer line too, you know. Unless you know something about urine that I don’t.

    Ryan, you know full well that it functions as both. Science can tell us that. But the anus will never be a sexual organ under any circumstances . Yes, people play around and treat it as such, but I’m talking about coitus here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    After all, in 25 years, sex with minors will probably be normal and legal (especially with the way were going now).

    Fletch, stick to the topic in hand. We have moved on from the days when girls were regularly married at 12 & 13, a fight we had to win over the religious fundies who thought we were trampling on their rights by daring to think girls and women might just also be due some respect and some rights.

    How old was Mary when god wanked in a cup and shoved the turkey baster in her? No more than 14.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Ryan Sproull (7,101 comments) says:

    As Fletch says, “even someone not very intelligent will tell you it is the “wrong hole” to try and perform sexual intercourse.” and yet I am sure he kisses his wife, but I’m guessing he’d find going down “icky”. But I bet he enjoys a good knob polish. There is an incredible array of sexual experience to be had, if only you’d open your cheeks.

    Being impolite doesn’t help your case.

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

    Fletch (3,166) Says:
    August 5th, 2012 at 6:20 pm

    Reason, science and logic say that the anus is not a sexual organ, and even someone not very intelligent will tell you it is the “wrong hole” to try and perform sexual intercourse.

    Look mate, just because your wife won’t let you do anal with her doesn’t mean that some people can happily enjoy that within the context of their own relationships. I suggest you check out some porn sites and see how anal sex is quite a common thing and in no way exclusive to homosexuals, and nobody is being struck down by meteors by God for doing it, and pretty much haven’t since 2,000 years ago when video cameras weren’t available to document it. Now explain to me why is it that straight people can get married and enjoy anal sex, but gay people cannot get married and enjoy anal sex? I see you Christians like to throw around the word ‘idiot’ which is rather ironic given that you are the ones who live your lives by a fairy tale.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Fletch (6,296 comments) says:

    Oh, come on wat – you’re being disingenuous and facetious.
    Be serious.

    You know I’m not talking about the different things people get up to for “fun”, I’m talking about coitus. Marriage is based around the sexual act, and the fact is that gays can’t have sexual intercourse together.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. eszett (2,401 comments) says:

    Because the nature of the relationships are different. Nor is it discrimination

    But it isn’t. That’s the point. The nature of their relationship or the want to enter is the same. In my opinion, the fact that is the same sex is not a valid distinction, therefore it is discrimination.

    Because it’s still between a man and a woman, which is what marriage is. A mixed race straight couple can argue that what they are doing is exactly the same thing.

    You realise that the arguments against mixed race marriage was along the same lines. A white man can still marry a white woman, therefore it is not discriminatory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    But the anus will never be a sexual organ under any circumstances . Then why does it have sensitive tissue that makes touch pleasurable? And why are nipples made of the same erectile tissue as a penis? Did god run out of bits?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Fletch (6,296 comments) says:

    Jimmy, see my post directly above.

    You’re confusing foreplay with what I am talking about, which is the sexual relationship that marriage is built around.

    Disingenuous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Ryan Sproull (7,101 comments) says:

    Ryan, you know full well that it functions as both. Science can tell us that. But the anus will never be a sexual organ under any circumstances . Yes, people play around and treat it as such, but I’m talking about coitus here.

    It clearly does function as an organ of sexual pleasure for some people. You can’t stimulate a prostate by high-fiving someone – I’d have heard if you could.

    This is all entirely irrelevant, though, assuming that wasn’t your intention. All that’s relevant to the question of marriage equality is whether or not a single/few religions’ values should be imposed on everyone via legal definitions. The answer is no, and we can all go home.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. wat dabney (3,726 comments) says:

    Marriage is based around the sexual act

    Marriage is based around whatever the partners wish it to be.

    It could be a shared interest in the music of Andrew Lloyd Webber

    It’s none of your business, and you don’t get to tell others what is and isn’t valid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. PaulL (5,971 comments) says:

    The point of rights is that they should not be impinged upon by the majority. That’s why the US has a constitution, and other countries have a bill of rights. So this isn’t necessarily about majorities.

    On the question of what this impacts, I don’t see how this impacts the “core meaning of marriage.” A marriage is a lifelong commitment by people to each other – it has a clear meaning that people are sharing assets and emotional support. Increasing the number of people who can access this arrangement does not change the meaning, it changes who can have a marriage.

    As for the rationale, we’ve been through it a bunch of times. But for the fun of it, let’s put it really clearly:

    The government currently provides access to a form of contract/commitment between people. It currently limits that arrangement to a subset of the population. Some people would like it extended to a greater proportion of the population. There appears to be no legal or moral reason to limit this – allowing more people to access this arrangement does not impact those people who can already access it.

    On the side of why we shouldn’t do it we seem to have the following arguments:
    – Homosexuality is abnormal, evil, a sin, or other pejorative statements that to my mind are bigoted or intolerant. Not good reasons – preventing homosexuals from getting married isn’t going to make homosexuality go away. Allowing them to get married is allowing them to have longer term and more stable relationships, which would seem to be a good thing if you disapproved of the “homosexual lifestyle”

    – Allowing homosexuals access to marriage will weaken other people’s marriages. I think this is an inane argument, and I haven’t yet had anyone explain how this would happen

    – Allowing homosexuals access to marriage would be redefining the word marriage. Firstly, I don’t think it is. Secondly, I’m not sure why that would be an argument against doing it. Words change meaning all the time.

    – It will be the end of society as we know it, the world is going insane etc etc. These are arguments against homosexuality being legal, not against gay marriage. Again, continuing to prevent marriage is not going to prevent homosexuality, and I think it’s the homosexuality you’re arguing against.

    So, my assessment, there is an argument for changing it. I see no sensible argument not to change it. And I don’t think it a good idea to have laws to prevent people doing things they want to do when those things have no impact on the people who are trying to stop it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Fletch (6,296 comments) says:

    And why are nipples made of the same erectile tissue as a penis? Did god run out of bits?

    Oh FFS. You guys are just taking the piss now aren’t you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Ryan Sproull (7,101 comments) says:

    It’d be a pretty fucking sad marriage that was based just on sex.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Fletch (6,296 comments) says:

    It’d be a pretty fucking sad marriage that was based just on sex.

    Exactly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. eszett (2,401 comments) says:

    Marriage is based around the sexual act, and the fact is that gays can’t have sexual intercourse together.

    You are such a romantic, Fletch

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Ryan Sproull (7,101 comments) says:

    It’d be a pretty fucking sad marriage that was based just on sex.

    Exactly.

    Fletch, you just said that marriage is based around the sexual act. Are you stoned?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. eszett (2,401 comments) says:

    Fletch (3,176) Says:
    August 5th, 2012 at 6:41 pm

    And why are nipples made of the same erectile tissue as a penis? Did god run out of bits?

    Oh FFS. You guys are just taking the piss now aren’t you.

    Not at all, Fletch. You started it.
    I’d really be keen to know what you think about oral sex and masturbation? “Wrong hole” as you put it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. PaulL (5,971 comments) says:

    Fletch, since your only argument so far appears to be “it’s the wrong sort of sex”, you are reduced to arguing why it’s the wrong sort of sex, and what the right sort of sex is.

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

    We get our say once every three years.

    Rodney, that’s correct. Now, can you point me to the bit in National manifesto where they campaigned on changing the centuries-old definition of marriage? I must have missed this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. PaulL (5,971 comments) says:

    krazy: explain again what a representative democracy is? If this was part of National’s platform, your argument would make sense. It’s proposed as a conscience vote. Why would it need to be part of National’s manifesto?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. eszett (2,401 comments) says:

    You could argue also that reason, science, and logic say the same about those attracted to minors or animals. They just have a different preference. After all, in 25 years, sex with minors will probably be normal and legal (especially with the way were going now).

    Reason, science, and logic tell us that consent and adulthood matter, so no, they wont tell us that sex with minors or animals is okay.
    Consenting adults, remember. I don’t know how often I have pointed this out for you, yet you just keep coming up with the same animal sex and pedophilia nonsense

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. eszett (2,401 comments) says:

    You know I’m not talking about the different things people get up to for “fun”, I’m talking about coitus. Marriage is based around the sexual act, and the fact is that gays can’t have sexual intercourse together.

    I don’t think that “consumption” is a legal requirement for marriage any more. If you wish to define it for yourself, fine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    Fletch (3,176) Says:
    August 5th, 2012 at 6:41 pm
    And why are nipples made of the same erectile tissue as a penis? Did god run out of bits?

    Oh FFS. You guys are just taking the piss now aren’t you.

    So you’ve never had a golden shower, either?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Ryan Sproull (7,101 comments) says:

    Reason, science and logic don’t – by themselves – tell us ANYTHING about how we should live. They can tell us what is likely to happen should we live one way or another, but not whether that way of living is good or bad. Reason and logic can tell us what is a consistent application of values, but cannot tell us what our values should be. (Because “what our values SHOULD be” presupposes a pre-existing moral framework for making that evaluation.)

    Just because science is predictive and descriptive, doesn’t mean it’s prescriptive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. thedavincimode (6,719 comments) says:

    kk

    They didn’t. This is a private member’s bill from a Liebour member; not gummint policy. This is not gummint policy ans is quite different from the blindsiding exercise of the she-beast.

    As you very well know.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Pete George (23,481 comments) says:

    Now, can you point me to the bit in National manifesto where they campaigned on…

    It’s not a National policy so of course they wouldn’t have campaigned on it. It’s a Members’s Bill put forward by Labour MP Louisa Wall. She may have campaigned on it.

    changing the centuries-old definition of marriage?

    In the nineteenth century England marriages were automatically anulled if a spouse was absent for seven years. Do you mean that definition?

    Or what definition do you mean? Defined by who?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Ryan Sproull (7,101 comments) says:

    By whom, Pete.

    By whom.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. kowtow (8,326 comments) says:

    Is it just me or does anyone else find muttonchops to be dreadfully crude?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Griff (7,520 comments) says:

    No kowtow I find the focus on bum sex by the god squad to be crude and sick
    I put that down to the priest they had as children

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Ryan Sproull (7,101 comments) says:

    Is it just me or does anyone else find muttonchops to be dreadfully crude?

    I told him he was being impolite, but it appeared to have no effect.

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

    PaulL 6:57 – fair enough.

    So where is the demand for this change coming from?  I work with two gay people (not a couple), and have a non-work friend who is gay. None of these people have the slightest interest in becoming ‘married’.

    Further, can anyone tell me what, apart from the title of ‘married’ is denied gay couples today? As BlairM has described pretty well, it’s nothing to do with conecpts of equality or discrimination. 

    The whole discussion reminds me of a time when our two pre-school kids were playing. One wanted the other’s toy, the one he had zero interest in before or after that day. He wanted that toy badly, and made a real scene before grabbing it and causing the younger child to scream and rant. The objective wasn’t to enjoy the toy, it was to infuriate his sibling and the enjoy causing distress. 

    I could see the situation for what it was then, and it’s no different in this instance:  Those advocating this change, and I don’t include the gay community here as I suspect they’re ambivalent, are the ones deliberately seeking to cause offense. So much the better if all this legitimizes giving good ‘ol conservative Christian values a quick knifing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. thedavincimode (6,719 comments) says:

    Griff

    That is outrageous and uncalled for. There is far more to Catholicism than anal sex as you very well know.

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

    Pete, Davinci and PaulL: I know that it’s a private member bill. Rodney was batting away the idea of have this put to referendum because we have a representative democracy. I disagree, and those who are so convinced that most of NZ is behind it should have nothing to fear from gaining a landslide endorsement. Should they?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Griff (7,520 comments) says:

    You are right there is the symbolic cannibalism, exorcism and self flagellation. silly me

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. kowtow (8,326 comments) says:

    kk

    I am completly with the idea of referenda,

    The political elites simply don’t like sharing power.Then they hide behind the myth of representative democracy and wonder why they are held in such low regard, indeed contempt, by growing numbers of the electorate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Pete George (23,481 comments) says:

    krazykiwi – NZ First said they want a referendum on it but as far as I know they have done nothing about initiating a referendum. As far as I know no other party sees the need for a referendum on it. I know for sure that United Future thinks that the normal parliamentary process is sufficient because I asked them if they would consider a referendum.

    So it looks like a CIR is the only option. But even if enough signatures could be gathered it will take far too long and can be ignored.

    And I really don’t think many people think or feel very strongly if at all about the bill, it won’t affect most people and they people are unlikely to be motivated to do anything about it even if they are mildly against it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. thedavincimode (6,719 comments) says:

    kk

    I have much sympathy for that view because this is an issue that many are very sensitive to. Irrespective of personal views one way or the other, I think it is nevertheless an issue that affects the way we regard ourselves as a society.

    That is why I was so bitter about the she-beast’s civil union law. Personally, I had no objection to it per se, but in the context of our society that policy demanded more than being part of some hidden agenda – just like the Honours list changes and dumping the Privy Council.

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

    krazykiwi (8,253) Says:
    August 5th, 2012 at 7:47 pm

    PaulL 6:57 – fair enough.

    So where is the demand for this change coming from? I work with two gay people (not a couple), and have a non-work friend who is gay. None of these people have the slightest interest in becoming ‘married’.

    If you are going to use ‘social pressure’ as a reason for saying there is no need to change, then likewise I can say ‘Christian pressure’ (or the lack thereof) is good enough for there to be no opposition. I too once worked with a Christian person and have Christian friends who have no issue with gay marriage. So where is the opposition for this change coming from? Take these young Christians for example who will be the next generation of Christian leaders (haha, they will shit on your graves with their liberal views):

    http://www.facebook.com/olivercarle/posts/328183090608474

    FYI you’re more than welcome to attend any gay community support meetings and you’ll see many gay people who would like to get married, just as if I walked into a conservative Church I’d easily find people who are opposed to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. questions (198 comments) says:

    “Other_Andy:
    August 5th, 2012 at 1:18 pm
    “The comparison with mixed-race marriages is entirely apt, because there is no substantive difference between that and gay marriage”

    Sigh…….
    No it isn’t.
    Marriage is defined as a ‘partnership’ between a man and a woman.
    Nothing to do with race, ethnicity or religion, as long as it is between a man and a woman.”

    This is the quintessential point that demonstrates why all conservatives are utter fucking retards worthy of nothing but contempt.

    You say this now, but had you been back then you’d be saying “Marriage is defined as a ‘partnership’ between a white man and a white woman, or a black man and a black woman”

    Simple as that, you are a brain dead bigot, claiming the sky is falling every time something you’re ideologically opposed to comes up.

    How about you take a principled stand? at the moment the government overrides the freedom between 2 consenting individuals to form a contract if A, the contract is a marriage contract, and B, the 2 persons are of the same sex.

    Not that hard is it? oh wait the gheys are coming, the sky is falling!

    “kowtow says:

    I am completly with the idea of referenda,”

    Maybe we could also include a referendum in regards to the ongoing rights of people to be Christian?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. BlairM (2,321 comments) says:

    No, in all the cases you mention, what is happening is an expression love, an emotion quite lacking in the stunted antis I think.

    God forbid you ever have to deal with a son or daughter coming out. You’d probably off them for your dishonour.

    Wow, you talk about love, then suggest I might honour-kill one of my daughters if she decided she was a lesbian, all because of my views on marriage, an entirely separate issue. Irony?

    I’ve supported the human rights of people attracted to the same sex all my adult life, including the right to marry. I just don’t think the government should define gay partnerships as a marriage, and one of the reasons I feel so strongly about it is the sheer HATE against people who hold to traditional values from those like yourself. It’s disgusting the way this debate has been conducted (on both sides I might add). The debate is about marriage, how we define it, and whether the government should prefer the valid values of one group of people in society over another. I am firm that they should not. The debate is not about gay people in general, or about what people’s values should be, whether they are gay, or evangelical Christian, or something in between.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    The thing that has baffled me til recently was: why did John Key vote against civil unions but come out in support of gay marriage? The only difference that I can see is that when he voted against the former, he wasn’t Minister of Tourism. I know I can be cynical but could Key see an opportunity here to market NZ to the rest of the world? The “gay dollar” – for want of a better term – is lucrative. Could Key the businessman be looking at this issue purely in financial terms? I wouldn’t be surprised.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/7419044/Pink-dollar-boost-seen-for-NZ-in-gay-marriages

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Pete George (23,481 comments) says:

    Ross, Key has explained that. He said that his vote on civil unions was as an MP representing his electorate. Now he has much wider responsibilities.

    It’s fair to say the public mood has changed since 2004. MPs, even Prime Ministers, can change their view over time, as many people seem to have.

    The civil unions bill hasn’t resulted in anything terrible, civilisation has survived. Marriage equality simply takes it to a logical conclusion.

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

    DPF, you have some utterly ghastly people that read this blog. But why I am confident that the bill will pass is that the most vocal opponents above are only brave on their keyboards and are way too chicken to get out on the streets to protest this bill.

    If the opponents were really so scared about gays getting to enjoy the same rights as us, why don’t they hold protest marches? Where are the donations being directed towards to fight this? Where are the newspaper adverts or the TV campaigns led by prominent Kiwis to speak out about it? Simples, the opponents are full of hot air who deep deep down know that they are on the wrong side of history. And THAT is why they and their stone-age beliefs will be defeated.

    20 years from now they’d either deny being on the wrong side of history or wonder what the fuss was all about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > Ross, Key has explained that.

    So as Minister of Tourism, Key hasn’t given a moment’s thought to the potential economic benefits of any law change?

    Despite what you say, plenty of MPs will vote against the legislation.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.