The politics of the same sex marriage issue

August 28th, 2012 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

In previous posts I’ve touched on what I regard as the principled case for allowing same sex couples to marry. In this final post from me before the first reading, I want to touch on the political side of the issue – and how it might impact MPs, especially National MPs whom have the most undecided MP.

1 – Most New Zealanders support marriage equality

Several polls have found New Zealanders support allowing same sex couples to marry by around a 2:1 majority. Amongst those under 35 it is over 4:1 in favour and 3:1 in favour amongst under 55s.

The following demographics all show majority support for – under 55s, men, women, all household income levels, Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch, Dunedin, Provincial cities, Rural areas.

2 – Most National supporters support marriage equality

The polls show the higher the household income, the more likely it is the voter supports same sex marriage. It is well known that National receives more support from higher income households.

Also the National Party Annual Conference in 2012 (not exactly a bastion of socialism) voted by 2:1 on the main floor to support allowing same sex couples to adopt, a related issue.

3 – Swinging voters most strongly support marriage equality

Historically female voters make up a higher proportion of undecided or swinging voters, as do younger voters who are yet to develop a voting preference. The poll data suggests that around 80% of women aged under 55 support allowing same sex marriage.

4 – A law change is inevitable

With 70% support from those aged under 55, a law change is absolutely inevitable – even if it doesn’t happen in 2012. Around the world, 11 countries have already voted to allow same sex marriage, as have six states in the US.

Unless you can think of some reason that younger voters will change their mind in the next few years the trend is clear.

This graph from 538, is from the US, and shows the huge change in public opinion over 20 years. That trend is not going to reverse.

5 – Do you want to be on the wrong side of history?

Personally I fully understand why some MPs struggle with what they see as redefining marriage. I’ll never judge an MP for voting in line with their honest beliefs – even if I disagree with them on an issue.

But future voters may not be so generous. In 15 years time, new voters especially will struggle to understand how their local MP voted against allowing their friends who are happily married, to get married. It may be a bit like an MP in 1908 explaining to female voters why they were against them having a vote in 1893!

6 – People vote on what actually affects them

Yes there are some people who write angry e-mails to you swearing they will not vote for you if you vote for same sex marriage. However we know that actually people tend to vote on what impacts them. Once this debate is over, no voter will actually be impacted by the fact there will be a few more couples married than was previously the case, They get impacted by jobs, wages, health care, education etc etc.

On the other side of the coin though, those who are not currently able to marry their loved ones do get impacted by a vote denying them that choice. It is personal to them, and it does affect them. It may not impact their party vote, but will impact their electorate vote. And they have friends, and colleagues.

Also the reality is that your primary opponent for the seat is highly likely to also support same sex marriage. They won’t be winning votes off you on this issue.

Now I don’t think MPs should vote for same sex marriage just because it is popular. Some MPs will vote for it because they deeply think it is the right thing to do, and some will vote against as they deeply think it is the wrong thing to do – and I respect that.

But some MPs are undecided – they see both pros and cons, and they do not feel as strongly on this issue as they do say on improving education. And for them, they do look at the political impact of an issue also.

I actually think the bill will pass. The media have reported they think it has the numbers for first reading. So my concern is not getting the bill over the line – it is that an MP doesn’t vote against the bill today, and regret that vote in years to come. I know a number of former MPs who deeply regret their votes against civil unions and before that against homosexual law reform.

As I said this is the last post from me on this issue before the (hopefully) first reading tomorrow night. However there will be a guest post tomorrow morning on it. Also for those who support a law change, there is a rally at Parliament at 1 pm tomorrow.

Tags:

152 Responses to “The politics of the same sex marriage issue”

  1. Pete George (23,830 comments) says:

    I think it’s a small and probably final change on this whose time has come.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. MH (830 comments) says:

    That penetrating graph definitely has a phallic virginal resemblance,it could do with a sheaf at least.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. wreck1080 (3,999 comments) says:

    This is so boring.

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

    wreck1080 (2,359) Says:
    August 28th, 2012 at 12:19 pm

    This is so boring.

    Christian? The same goes for Sunday morning Church services.

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

    Oh FFS. Look, you can be in favour of gay marriage from a policy perspective – that’s fine.

    But please drop all this “wrong side of history” and “inevitability” claptrap. It has a decidedly Marxist ring to it and the idea that history is a completely linear march in one direction is palpably false. The claims for the inevitability of economic Marxism seemed plausible in the mid 19th – 20th centuries (“well will bury you”). They proved to be false, however – and it could well be the case with the cultural Marxism of the present day.

    For a more recent case, look at the Equal Rights Amendment movement in the United States. Supported by large majorities and included in the planks of both major political parties by decades. The David Farrar’s of the 1970s were uniformly in favour of the amendment and were terrified of being seen “on the wrong-side of history”.

    In the end, the amendment came within a handful of states short of being ratified until a conservative revival, led by Phyllis Schlafly, swept the movement into the dust bin of history.

    You’re better than this DPF (or, I would have liked to have thought so).

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

    Principled case.
    So the other side of the argument can’t be principled obviously?
    Rubbish, just more propaganda dressed up as discussion.
    Same gender marriage is an oxymoron as you and all the others know full well.

    The best thing for kids is a Father and Mother who love them and each other.
    2nd prize is a man and woman who love them and each other.
    Everything else is third prize and sadly in some cases all we’ve got.
    But first prize should always drive law and policy.

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

    Cato. It is inevitable and more likely than not to happen within this political cycle.

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

    This shows the power of propaganda, and ad hominem in leading people down the garden path and over the cliff.

    Don’t know where DPF and his fellow travelers think the people of New Zealand circa 2050 are going to come from?

    The stork doesn’t bring them you know and nor are they found in the cabbage patch.

    [DPF: Andrei – I support gay marriage, not mandatory homosexuality. I’m personally a rather big fan of heterosexual sex and breeding]

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

    Does anyone else looking at that graph see an infected cock?

    I can’t wait for this bill to pass into law, so that all the homophobes will go away again like they did after the homosexual law reform. The bluster from the homophobes is getting pretty old.

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

    > But please drop all this “wrong side of history” and “inevitability” claptrap.

    I tend to agree. There are good reasons to support gay marriage but I’m not sure these two hold any water. Sooner or later Labour will be in government. Should National abdicate the job now and save itself a lot of angst? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. loonybonkersmad (27 comments) says:

    You do realise that the ‘penis’ graph was a fake one that the NYT fell for don’t you?

    Or is this a huge joke …

    [DPF: Do you have a reference for it?]

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

    If you mean that it’s likely and probable that it will happen in New Zealand then yes. In the wider Western world? Who knows, but in any event, nobody knows what the judgment of history will be. Look to be on the right side of an issue as you see it, not the right side of the history yet unwritten. The latter stance is the unprincipled and pathetic abode of party functionaries, professional politicians and those parastitically suckling on them.

    I don’t care what side of the issue you do think is prudent, that’s what reasoned debate is for. But it takes real hubris to declare that one is “on the right side of history” – an hubris almost always invites nemesis. The appeal to history as a justification for your actions should, argues the great historian Andrew Roberts, “have died at Auschwitz.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Aredhel777 (292 comments) says:

    Please, *Christians* will be on the wrong side of history? This obsession with homosexuality is a flash in a pan, a passing Western fad. It is obvious to people of almost every other culture currently across the globe that homosexuality is wrong. Pastors who are imprisoned because they refuse to perform same-sex marriages will be seen as heroes in a hundred years time and people will wonder how society ever became so crazy as to criminalise these people in the first place. When society comes to its senses and realises that the sexual revolution has made them no happier, we will be here with a more authentic model of sexuality. But even if it does not and even if we are forever seen as intolerant and prejudiced, we will never compromise on our ethical beliefs. God will be our judge.

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

    “C’mon, this Nazi thing is popular. Everyone seems to support it. You don’t want to be on the wrong side of history.”

    Obviously SSM marriage is nothing compared to Nazi Germany. My point is that popularity is not the strongest argument for supporting something.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. LabourDoesntWork (292 comments) says:

    “marriage equality”, “marriage equality”

    This isn’t marriage equality as it drastically limits marriage still. In fact it only expands the definition to one further category while still excluding the majority of others. A category, in theory, that is just a small minority-of-a-minority of 2-3% of the population. And the biggest supporters are not even supporters, or believers in, marriage itself. Where are the feminists declaring how oppressive marriage is to “bottoms”? (don’t blame me: the term itself is a pun) “Countless gaymen will now be subjected to the oppression of the outdated institution of marriage!” (“Outdated”–remember that?)

    The trend is clear. As marriage itself has declined in favour, then distinctions between what almost universally has been recognised to be marriage, and that which hasn’t, will no longer be important. What victory in a decision legalising homogamy, then? Because progressives are trend-followers who forget the meaning of what is being discussed as they’re too busy patting themselves on the back for going with the flow and demonising those who are, objectively, on the side of history. “…whose time has come”? TF does that mean? I suspect it has to do with nihilism as applied to marriage, plus groupthink, that can turn something outdated and oppressive for some people into something socially trendy to the same people.

    John Key’s deep thinking on the issue is clear. “This won’t affect my marriage to my wife”–or whatever. Banal fallacy substituting any thought to the significance of what’s called for here – including why it has not occurred in the first 170+ years of the country’s history already, afterall, and precisely why it should be about to happen now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. simonway (387 comments) says:

    2 – Most National supporters support marriage equality

    The polls show the higher the household income, the more likely it is the voter supports same sex marriage. It is well known that National receives more support from higher income households.

    As someone who runs a polling company, David, you should be aware that correlation is not transitive. The quoted statement tells you nothing at all about whether National supporters on the whole are in favour of legalising same-sex marriage. It would be perfectly possible for wealthy people to favour marriage equality and vote mostly for National, and simultaneously for the majority of National voters to be opposed to the idea.

    The statement about the conference tells you something about the sort of people who go to party conferences, but to find out if “most National supporters support marriage equality”, you would need to poll that directly.

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

    East Wellington Superhero

    All the socialist dictators of the 20th century appealed to the inevitability of the triumph of socialism (in either it’s nationalistic or bolshevik form). As you say, that doesn’t make SSM supporters morally equivalent to them, it just makes them equally arrogant and short-sighted.

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

    Also, all that a sitting local MP needs to say is “SSM marriage is one of many issues that I deal with as a local MP. I believe that marriage should be for a man and women and on this issue I will be voting against SSM. If this is the only thing that you think is an issue then perhaps you may not vote for me in 2014. That is your choice.” I suspect most local voters would say fair-enough, and will have forgotten by 2014 – and those that don’t probably didn’t vote for you in the first place.

    If our local MPs are that spineless (assuming they are anti-SSM, then we have a bigger problem.

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

    @EWS, that works both ways: (pardon the pun)

    “SSM marriage is one of many issues that I deal with as a local MP. I believe that marriage should be also allowed between a man and a man or a woman and a woman and on this issue I will be voting for SSM. If you disagree and this is the only thing that you think is an issue then perhaps you may not vote for me in 2014. That is your choice.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. simonway (387 comments) says:

    All the socialist dictators of the 20th century appealed to the inevitability of the triumph of socialism (in either it’s nationalistic or bolshevik form)

    You’re hilarious, Cato. Viva gay socialism!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    Welcome to Punxsutawney and February 2.

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

    Before the Nazi thing goes too much further…

    These are Nazis:
    http://memberfiles.freewebs.com/14/50/84835014/photos/undefined/adolf-hitler56461r.jpg

    This is what Nazis are best remembered for:
    http://www.xtimeline.com/__UserPic_Large/1406/ELT200708151357132040002.JPG

    As you were.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. simonway (387 comments) says:

    Where are the feminists declaring how oppressive marriage is to “bottoms”? (don’t blame me: the term itself is a pun) “Countless gaymen will now be subjected to the oppression of the outdated institution of marriage!” (“Outdated”–remember that?)

    Feminists calling for the outright abolition of marriage have always been something of a minority, but they’re definitely still around. I know many of them.

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

    @thedavincimode

    +1

    great movie! :-)
    certainly feels like it.

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

    tvdm,

    :-)

    Then I refreshed my memory on Wikipedia and could help but chortle (given this and related threads) when reading right through the entry. A little immature I accept, but perhaps it being a slow day is sufficient excuse in this instance…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundhog_Day_(film)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Griff (8,419 comments) says:

    The fundies seem to be discussing the parallels between gay marriage and the decline of Communism with a little Nationalsozialismus thrown in for balance

    Please join me in praying to the flying spaghetti monster that DPF and the fundies will shut up about homos soon R’amen.
    Remember International Talk Like a Pirate Day is on September 19

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

    Do you know what’s weird? That people who invoke history to slight traditionalists by inferring they are this generations segregationists, cry foul when comparisons to other false inevitabilities – of which communism is the most salient example – because those comparisons are unflattering.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Manolo (14,173 comments) says:

    The migration of the National Party, aka Labour lite, to the pinko alliance is now complete.
    Long live Chairman Key and his horde of emasculated acolytes.

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

    Manolo,

    As a libertarian you should be celebrating this. And applauding JK for his support.

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

    Sorry that should say “when other comparisons are made”

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

    Cry foul? Not at all, cato. Please go on ahead, carry on, don’t let anyone stop you. I am sure comparing gay marriage to communism will do nothing but advance your case.

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

    Except, I’m not – I’m comparing appeals to the inevitability of each. Look to be on the right side of an issue today, not what you think will be considered the right side of history in fifty, one hundred, or a thousand years.

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

    Aredhel777 (192) Says:
    August 28th, 2012 at 12:50 pm

    Please, *Christians* will be on the wrong side of history? This obsession with homosexuality is a flash in a pan, a passing Western fad. It is obvious to people of almost every other culture currently across the globe that homosexuality is wrong. Pastors who are imprisoned because they refuse to perform same-sex marriages will be seen as heroes in a hundred years time and people will wonder how society ever became so crazy as to criminalise these people in the first place. When society comes to its senses and realises that the sexual revolution has made them no happier, we will be here with a more authentic model of sexuality. But even if it does not and even if we are forever seen as intolerant and prejudiced, we will never compromise on our ethical beliefs. God will be our judge.

    Ever read a book called What’s So Amazing About Grace by Philip Yancey? In it he talks about how there are still elderly grandfathers in the Southern Church he used to attend who still hold strongly racist views about the Church becoming mixed race and feel like the liberals have taken over. One day the youth in your Church are just going to view you as a homophobic, angry old man swinging his cane at the kids on his lawn. But it doesn’t matter because you’re just going to be old and feeble and everyone just ignores your rantings and feels sorry for you. You will swear you will leave your Church because the pastors are accepting of homosexuals and that the verses in the Bible referring to homosexuality are given as much weight as verses about slavery and sexism, the Church will have moved on to other social causes such as alleviating third world poverty while you fight for time on the pulpit to rant about the evils of gay marriage but nobody lets you go up and your grandkids try to calm you down and say you’ll get your chance to speak at the end of the service when everyone has left but by the time you get up people have already gone home and only a few other old people have stayed behind to hear your sermon that has no relevance anymore in that day and age and you will die old and alone and angry at the world because it’s become a better place, deluded about meeting some God who is going to reward you for your discrimination during your lifetime.

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

    Cato (119) Says:
    August 28th, 2012 at 1:41 pm

    Except, I’m not – I’m comparing appeals to the inevitability of each.

    So you are comparing. But you are not comparing. I see.

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

    Yes. Whether two things are inevitable or not is not the same thing as sayng the two things are the same things. In logic that’s called the fallacy of association.

    But what history does show, is that the lasting triumph of some cause declared inevitable seldom is, so to speak.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Chuck Bird (4,909 comments) says:

    “I’ll never judge an MP for voting in line with their honest beliefs – even if I disagree with them on an issue.”

    Why do you not extent that to other people?

    BTW – have you a source for your theory on younger brother being affected in the womb?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Pete George (23,830 comments) says:

    ‏@patrickgowernz
    John banks is voting for gay marriage

    @jhartevelt
    Banksy says he’s voting for gay marriage at 1st reading. Why’s that Banksy? “Cos I am.”

    Current count 64 for the first reading.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. iMP (2,457 comments) says:

    The other side: 20 Reasons Same Sex Marriage is a Mistake.
    http://conzervative.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/20-reasons-y-same-sex-marriage-is-a-mistake

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Chuck Bird (4,909 comments) says:

    I wonder if Banksie canvased his electorate?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Redbaiter (10,443 comments) says:

    “You’re better than this DPF (or, I would have liked to have thought so).”

    Yeah well, apparently he isn’t.

    In the end just another cultural Marxist (and Progressive) who just does not get it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Pete George (23,830 comments) says:

    Redbaiter – can it be presumed from that comment that you oppose freedom of choice for couples to get married?

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

    “Cultural Marxism, political correctness gone mad, liberal elites, gay agenda, homosexual activist, political elites, abomination, the decline of western civilisation, etc, etc.”

    This topic certainly takes bullshit bingo to the next level

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Don the Kiwi (1,821 comments) says:

    What really shits me are the smarmy, arrogant progressive liberals like Griff and Jimmy Smits who pour scorn on any opposing view – particularly a Christian view, with ridiculous comparisons to slavery, female emancipation, and homosexual law reform.
    WRT to the latter, the vast majority of christians had very little problem with decriminalising homosexuals. We don’t “hate” homosexuals: we disagree with their homosex activity because it is against the natural law – but the people themselves are due the respect that is due to all of humanity – that is a firmly held and promoted christian principle.

    But this SSM is just another step in the agenda to ensure that “the World” approves of their instrinsically disordered sexual activity: next comes the push for a law to outlaw anyone speaking against gayness as being a hater and due for incarceration.

    Many Same Sex Attracted people don’t give a shit about it. Roll on progressive liberal spineless politicians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Chuck Bird (4,909 comments) says:

    DPF, if you beleive the majority support homosexual marriage would you support a binding referendum if the bill passes a final reading and if not why not?

    If it did pass this second hurdle the opponents would mostly would accept it. If it gets rammed through we are likely to see the Conservative Party and NZF in Parliament. If The Conservative Party ceases to exist for whatever reason I will vote for Winston. I never thought I would say that.

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

    Redbaiter – can it be presumed from that comment that you oppose freedom of choice for couples to get married?

    Pete George, you can take it as read that anybody whose brain cells are still functioning realize that same sex couples cannot get married any more than you can fasten something together with two nuts or two bolts, you need one of each kind to make the fastening and one of each gender to the marriage.

    The reason the elites are pushing this is to change the meaning of the word because they do not like marriage and the strong family bonds that ensue which reduce Government dependency and Government power grows by increasing Government dependency.

    Of course the law of unintended consequences will come into play

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Pete George (23,830 comments) says:

    Chuck, would you party vote based on this one bill?

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

    It’s the complete lack of perspective that gets me. Remember eugenics, when all the key institutions and opinion-makers signed up to the idea of genetic hygiene (through mostly humane methods). It was a cause that was championed at its time not by the equivalent of today’s progressives, but by THE actual “progressive” movement. The only opposition came from those benighted poor souls too ignorant to shed their pre-modern superstitions.

    That is not the same thing as saying that gay marriage is akin to eugenics. You would think, however, that it would induce a certain humility among those clamouring for relentlesss social change based on their innately limited reasoning ability. But no – unfortunately we get limp posts like this one, about the fear of being on the wrong side of history.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Pete George (23,830 comments) says:

    Andrei – I guess I’m not an ‘elite’ because I like marriage a lot. I think it strengthens relationships, strengthens families and reduces promiscuity.

    And whatever you think about homosexuality giving them the same opportunity to commit to relationships should benefit them and not harm me. And I don’t see how it would harm you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Pete George (23,830 comments) says:

    Confusion over whether NZ First are abstaining or not. The Herald reported they were now going to vote against, but…

    @kurtsharpe
    @Richard_Prosser @LachlanForsyth @mcquillanatorz I have two emails from NZFirst MP Denis O’Rourke saying that NZFirst will abstain on this.

    I suspect the party may have thought they made a decision to abstain but one MP may be looking at any opportunity to grandstand.

    Or is there a split?

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

    Chuck Bird (2,501) Says:
    August 28th, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    DPF, if you believe the majority support homosexual marriage would you support a binding referendum if the bill passes a final reading and if not why not?

    Chucky, you are the one who has to explain why this needs a referendum and why three readings with public debates and participation in the select committee is not enough. For every other law it seems to be.

    So far you haven’t brought up much. The fact that it is a private members bill doesn’t amount to anything.

    Why does this bill warrant a referendum and say the introduction of charter schools don’t? How come you are not pushing for a referendum there? That bill affects way more people than this bill does.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Manolo (14,173 comments) says:

    Banksie jumps in support: http://news.msn.co.nz/nationalnews/8523281/votes-tallied-as-gay-marriage-debate-nears

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

    It is not going to harm me per se Pete George.

    I am not thinking for myself here but for those to come, including my own children.

    See marriage has always been recognized as a public good because it encourages people to raise and socialize children into the ways of the people. The children who will be the engineers, doctors, nurses, of the future and not the criminals who will have to be contained and who come overwhelmingly from fractured or non existent families.

    Now for reasons of sheer insanity (actually evil) for forty years now the cultural nihilists who have infiltrated our polity have been undermining marriage and instead of encouraging childbirth encouraging abortion. Did you know we could populate Hamilton with the people we have snuffed out before they were born in the past ten years.

    The results are as of now 30%+ of kids growing up on welfare with no future and the need to import the engineers, doctors, nurses and so forth we need to keep the wheels of society turning.

    To exacerbate the situation people like myself who do raise the children who would be productive elements of society loose them overseas where they thrive.

    We are in our death spiral and the Governments solution, recreate marriage in a new image that doesn’t encourage the production of large numbers of children and actually discourages heterosexual couples from reproducing because those with large families cannot compete materially with the “dinkies” who hold them in subtle scorn often enough.

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

    Pete George, you can take it as read that anybody whose brain cells are still functioning realize that same sex couples cannot get married any more than you can fasten something together with two nuts or two bolts, you need one of each kind to make the fastening and one of each gender to the marriage

    Yes because marriage is the same thing as assembling an Ikea bookshelf.
    Brilliant analogy, Andrei. Keep up the “sanctity of marriage” with nuts and bolts references.

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

    PG –

    Your argument articulated at 2.49 is perfectly understandable but I’m not sure I agree.

    One of the prime benefits of marriage is that it seems to civilize men – it pressures them to committ to one partner in a stable relationship that, all things being equal, is more conducive to a good environment for child-rearing. But in reality, it’s not marriage that civilises men, it’s women that do. Marriage is simply the institution that ties them together – though that ideal has taken a real hit in the last 50 years, I agree.

    The problem is that men and women aren’t fungible. Saying that the good traditional marriage has done over the years will only be multiplied by widening its franchise is a bit like saying: “you can make a good loaf of bread using flour and yeast, so surely you can also dispense with the yeast and just double the amount of flour.”

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

    eszett there are a great many things in this world that are greater than the sum of the parts.

    A Man united to a woman in marriage is one of those things

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

    We are in our death spiral and the Governments solution, recreate marriage in a new image that doesn’t encourage the production of large numbers of children and actually discourages heterosexual couples from reproducing because those with large families cannot compete materially with the “dinkies” who hold them in subtle scorn often enough.

    lol lol lol

    Brilliant. “gay marriage will discourage heterosexual couples from reproducing.”
    I am beginning to think RRMs (is it his?) theory is right and you are secretly a gay marriage advocate.

    Do you actually realise how absurd (and funny) your posts are becoming?

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

    A Man united to a woman in marriage is one of those things

    Man with a capital M, yet woman with a small w. Hmmmm, a Freudian slip perhaps. ;-)
    Just teasing, I am sure it’s just a typo.

    Why can’t a man united to man in marriage be one of those things? Or a woman united to a woman in marriage?

    If they are united in marriage, how will that affect the marriage of the man united to a woman? Perhaps not at all. Imagine that.

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

    LOL at how eszett always fails to spot metaphors and analogies. No wonder he thinks the religious take spiritual books literally if he seems actually incapable of conceiving that people use characters or events to represent or symbolize larger ideas and concepts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Pete George (23,830 comments) says:

    To show that the ‘interesting stories’ and anologies aren’t all from one side…

    National MP Maurice Williamson says despite such theories, he’ll vote for Labour MP Louisa Wall’s bill when it comes before parliament tomorrow night.

    He says that’s because he’s a libertarian and he doesn’t care what people do.

    He says if people want to marry their dog, they can do that, as long as the dog stays off his lawn.

    http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/news/702258476-belief-gay-marriage-bill-will-pass-first-reading

    That’s cringy. I mustn’t be a libertarian because I care what people do.

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

    Why can’t a man united to man in marriage be one of those things? Or a woman united to a woman in marriage?

    Have you graduated from kindergarten yet?

    There is something profoundly different between a couple comprised of man and a woman and any same sex couple of either combination!!!!!!!!!!

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

    Cato (123) Says:
    August 28th, 2012 at 3:16 pm

    LOL at how eszett always fails to spot metaphors and analogies.

    Quite ironic, since you obviously missed the analogy and metaphor in my reply to a spurious analogy. (Speaking of anal, are analogies allowed in this discussion)

    I think you might have just shot yourself in the foot. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

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

    There is something profoundly different between a couple comprised of man and a woman and any same sex couple of either combination!!!!!!!!!!

    Ten exclamation marks? That seems, well, profound.
    Really? What exactly? Other than gender, I mean. That would not be profound, but rather obvious.

    What is that something that is so profoundly different that you would deny them the right to marriage?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. kowtow (8,945 comments) says:

    Wrong side of history?

    History is flux. It’s about population and migration.

    Who has the population and who is migrating?

    Homosexuality will most definitly be “the wrong side of history”, remember even singing and dancing aren’t allowed.

    History is coming to the former western,Christian nations,not like a rip but a slow steady rising tide.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Ryan Sproull (7,360 comments) says:

    A moment to consider the irony of any evangelical Christians scoffing at the notion of historical inevitability.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Chuck Bird (4,909 comments) says:

    “Chuck, would you party vote based on this one bill?”

    I could but their it a lot more than that. For a start we almost have two liberal major parties. There of course is the matter of the anti-smacking legislation. That rules out National and Labour not that there is much chance I would vote Labour. I think we will get some MP moving an amendment that this should go to a binding referendum if it gets to the final reading. I am sure plenty of people will be watching how the MPs vote. I will probably vote for the Conservative Party if they can get their polling up. Failing that I will vote NZF.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Manolo (14,173 comments) says:

    The economy is crap, the country needs to borrow less and get out of the mire, but Labour lite seems determined to continue pushing “important” issues like gay marriage. Who bloody cares?

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

    Here’s a pretty good read on gay marriage and historical inevitability of it

    http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/05/21/120521taco_talk_talbot

    I know, I know, the new yorker, a liberal rag.
    But hey Chucky got to post something from the news weekly yesterday, that more than balances it out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. simonway (387 comments) says:

    same sex couples cannot get married any more than you can fasten something together with two nuts or two bolts, you need one of each kind to make the fastening

    Wow, Andrei, why are you so obsessed with sex? If that sort of thing is what hetero “marriage” is all about, I wonder if we should even have it at all. Marriage ought to involve love and lifelong commitment not some base desire to “get laid”. That kind of language makes me inclined to think that the Marriage Act should be amended to eliminate “opposite-sex marriage”, so that only morally righteous homosexuals will be able to participate in the venerable institution. If “straight” couples want to get “married”, they can make do with a civil union.

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

    …seems determined to continue pushing “important” issues like gay marriage.

    @Manolo – the Bill was drawn by ballot. It is not something National is, or has been, pushing. Having been drawn, it now must be addressed. Would you rather National behaved like Labour and sought to filibuster forever and a day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Aredhel777 (292 comments) says:

    “Ever read a book called What’s So Amazing About Grace by Philip Yancey? In it he talks about how there are still elderly grandfathers in the Southern Church he used to attend who still hold strongly racist views about the Church becoming mixed race and feel like the liberals have taken over. One day the youth in your Church are just going to view you as a homophobic, angry old man swinging his cane at the kids on his lawn. But it doesn’t matter because you’re just going to be old and feeble and everyone just ignores your rantings and feels sorry for you. You will swear you will leave your Church because the pastors are accepting of homosexuals and that the verses in the Bible referring to homosexuality are given as much weight as verses about slavery and sexism, the Church will have moved on to other social causes such as alleviating third world poverty while you fight for time on the pulpit to rant about the evils of gay marriage but nobody lets you go up and your grandkids try to calm you down and say you’ll get your chance to speak at the end of the service when everyone has left but by the time you get up people have already gone home and only a few other old people have stayed behind to hear your sermon that has no relevance anymore in that day and age and you will die old and alone and angry at the world because it’s become a better place, deluded about meeting some God who is going to reward you for your discrimination during your lifetime.”

    The interracial marriage analogy is flawed, for many reasons. People who refuse to let a black person marry a white person do so because black people are supposedly racially inferior. In a same-sex union, the individuals concerned are of the same sex. Thus, the concerns that Christians have with homosexuality are not analogous to racism, and the interracial marriage analogy does not apply. Rather, we think that men and women should marry each other.

    Additionally, Christians are not necessarily ‘homophobic’. This implies that Christians are afraid of or hate homosexuals. This does not necessarily follow from the fact that someone thinks that same-sex unions are wrong. I certainly don’t feel that way about gay people.

    Oh and one last comment: it’s not the conservatives who are obsessed with the issue. If you want a church that preaches on homosexuality every single Sunday, try Glynn Cardy and his congregation of “Christian atheists”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Ryan Sproull (7,360 comments) says:

    The interracial marriage analogy is flawed, for many reasons. People who refuse to let a black person marry a white person do so because black people are supposedly racially inferior. In a same-sex union, the individuals concerned are of the same sex. Thus, the concerns that Christians have with homosexuality are not analogous to racism, and the interracial marriage analogy does not apply. Rather, we think that men and women should marry each other.

    Word magic. People who refuse to let a black person marry a white person do so because such couplings are supposedly inferior. People who refuse to let a same-sex couple marry do so for the same reason. This is besides the point, however. It is the Christian’s right to believe that same-sex couplings, or interracial couplings, are inferior.

    It is not their right, however, to have such views imposed on the whole populace regardless of their religious views.

    If you don’t like same-sex marriage, don’t marry someone who is the same sex as you. If you don’t like interracial marriage, don’t marry someone who is a different race from you. That’s your right. Stay out of other people’s lives, and don’t get the state to do your imposing for you.

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

    Word magic. People who refuse to let a black person marry a white person do so because such couplings are supposedly inferior.

    Word magic. People who opposed inter racial marriage did so because the believed the mixed race offspring that would result would lead to a degeneration of their society. The laws that banned inter racial marriage were called “Anti-miscegenation laws” and containe that word within their statutes. Look up what “miscegenation” means in the dictionary.

    The analogy between gay “marriage” and inter racial marriage is facile.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Aredhel777 (292 comments) says:

    “Word magic. People who refuse to let a black person marry a white person do so because such couplings are supposedly inferior. People who refuse to let a same-sex couple marry do so for the same reason. This is besides the point, however. It is the Christian’s right to believe that same-sex couplings, or interracial couplings, are inferior.

    It is not their right, however, to have such views imposed on the whole populace regardless of their religious views.

    If you don’t like same-sex marriage, don’t marry someone who is the same sex as you. If you don’t like interracial marriage, don’t marry someone who is a different race from you. That’s your right. Stay out of other people’s lives, and don’t get the state to do your imposing for you.”

    People who refuse to let people of two different races marry would not describe the coupling itself as inferior. They would describe the *black person* as inferior. Thus, they do not want to allow different races to intermarry, as the result would be children who are racially tainted and inferior (which I quite concur is a disgustingly racist notion.)

    As you can see, this is a completely different scenario to those who oppose same-sex unions, who do not do so on the basis that anyone is inferior. People of the same sex cannot procreate, so the analogy completely fails. Additionally, as I have already explained, people of the same sex are of the same sex, so nobody is passing judgment on how one group of people are superior to the other group and shouldn’t intermarry.

    Edit: ah, Andrei got in first.

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

    The analogy between gay “marriage” and inter racial marriage is facile.

    No, it’s not. It’s actually quite apt, that’s why it infuriates you.
    For starter it’s the similar arguments for the same kind of people (religious and social conservatives)

    And It’s very similar in the sense that opposition was to it was based no good reason, the very same that is happening now regarding gay marriage.

    Most of the opposition to same sex marriage is completely irrational and based on some bogus arguments as was the opposition to inter racial marriage and so the analogy, at least to some degree, is quite appropriate.

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

    People of the same sex cannot procreate, so the analogy completely fails.

    The procreation argument is such nonsense. We let lots of people marry even though they cannot procreate or choose not to.

    Or are you saying infertile couples should not be allowed to marry? Or woman past menopause shouldn’t be able marry?
    Surely not.

    Besides, as pointed out numerous time, just like infertile straight couples, gays and especially lesbians can procreate. In fact, they have been for ages now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Ryan Sproull (7,360 comments) says:

    People who refuse to let people of two different races marry would not describe the coupling itself as inferior. They would describe the *black person* as inferior.

    Nonsense. They would describe both as inferior.

    You are free to believe that same-sex marriage is wrong. You are free to believe that interracial marriage is wrong. You are free to believe that marriage that doesn’t take place in a church, or a mosque, or a temple is wrong. Others are free to ignore your personal religious views on the matter.

    The analogy between interracial and same-sex marriage is not facile for that precise reason. Whichever view you personally hold, you may, and you let me know if someone tries to stop you from having that belief using the power of the state to do so. But the law should be empty space when it comes to religious views. An open space for people to operate within, but not enforcing one religious view or another on the populace as a whole.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Aredhel777 (292 comments) says:

    “For starter it’s the similar arguments for the same kind of people (religious and social conservatives)”

    No, the reasoning is completely different, as I have just explained. Interracial marriage was frowned upon because black people were seen as biologically inferior to white people, and therefore if the two marriages were to intermarry it would create biologically inferior children. This is a completely different reasoning to those who argue that gay marriage should not be permitted because men and women complement each other leading to more stable relationships (and therefore unions between gays are less stable), who point out that gay relationships are far less likely to be monogamous, that STIs are far more common amongst the LGBT community, that two people of the same sex cannot reproduce, that if gays were to adopt this would adversely affect their children, and so forth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Ryan Sproull (7,360 comments) says:

    Aredhel,

    You can’t imagine someone arguing that same-race marriages lead to more stable relationships?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Aredhel777 (292 comments) says:

    That is not the rationale of the racists, Ryan Sproull.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Rightandleft (691 comments) says:

    Incredible to see that Banks has now declared he will vote in favour of same-sex marriage! It is true to the libertarian ideology of Act but I hadn’t expected a social conservative like him to honour the party’s beliefs. If even he is voting in favour I think the bill should very safely pass.

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

    To quote from the New Yorker article above:

    When Margaret Rusk, the eighteen-year-old daughter of Secretary of State Dean Rusk, married a black man, Rusk offered to resign to save the Johnson Administration from embarrassment. (Johnson did not take him up on it.) Interracial couples faced stares, ostracism, discrimination in housing and employment, and a common theory that they were pathological.

    In 1965, the Times had reported on a psychiatrist who avowed that “deep-seated psychological sicknesses of various sorts underlie the ‘vast majority’ of marriages between white persons and Negroes.”

    Three years later, the Times Magazine cited the career setbacks that “the white husband in an interracial marriage” could expect. He should not hope to “become head of A.T. & T. or I.B.M.,” though he might “find a rewarding niche in those fast-expanding areas in which his marital status would not be a matter of vast concern—in the entertainment industry, for instance, or in editorial work.” In addition, it was “typical” for interracial couples to forgo having children, out of fear of the hardships they would suffer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Ryan Sproull (7,360 comments) says:

    That is not the rationale of the racists, Ryan Sproull.

    And will 20 years from now people be saying, “That is not the rationale of the homophobes”?

    You rationalised your belief. You must. You’re a rational human being who believes that same-sex marriage is terribly wrong, and so you have to reconcile logic and what you see with what you must believe is true. Reason justifies faith, whatever that faith is. If evidence presented itself that utterly refuted the reason for your belief, you would not reject that belief: you would find new reasoning.

    You will never be convinced. Reason serves belief. Your reason serves yours. My reason serves mine. I understand that. It’s just that my faith is in the rightness of people being free to live as they choose to, which happens to be palatable in general. In another time, another place, your faith’s reasoning would be more popular.

    But we live in a society where people value liberty from others’ views – to a small extent, but I also have faith that this will grow. The state should not be an instrument of telling people how to live. If it is to exist at all, the state should protect a field within which people should live as they choose.

    The time for your belief and your belief’s reasoning has either passed, or is yet to come, or both.

    Now is the time for liberty. I’m fine with that.

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

    And will 20 years from now people be saying, “That is not the rationale of the homophobes”?

    20 years from now there will be 2½ working age adults for every super-annuitant- not quite sure how that is going to work out myself.

    But I do know why it has occurred

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Pete George (23,830 comments) says:

    20 years from now there will be 2½ working age adults for every super-annuitant

    How many of those super-annuitants will be paying at least as much tax as they get in NZ Super?

    What will the world population be then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Ryan Sproull (7,360 comments) says:

    20 years from now there will be 2½ working age adults for every super-annuitant- not quite sure how that is going to work out myself.

    But I do know why it has occurred

    I don’t suppose it’s anything to do with exponential medical advances.

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

    I am beginning to think RRMs (is it his?) theory is right and you are secretly a gay marriage advocate.

    Not Guilty I’m afraid. I do like that theory, but I think it might be Pete George or DaVinciMode who penned it…?

    I do have a theory of my own, (and I’m seeing some examples in support of it on this thread!) but it’s a lot more general than that…

    RRM’s THEOREM:
    There is no-one further left, than the extreme right.

    If you see someone complaining about how there is too much state interference in their lives, remember their usernames because inevitably you’ll see them arguing in favour of the state suppressing someone else’s freedom sooner or later.

    I think this deep inner conflict is the reason why so many of the people on here who want less government and more freedom, but are also moral conservatives, are so twisted out of shape and so angry all the time…?

    It must be hard when you HATE the government taxing you and imposing regulations on you, but for some reason you fervently believe your moral judgements on some other matters are THE ONLY CORRECT ONES and they should be imposed on everyone else. It’s a pretty fundamental contradiction…

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

    How many of those super-annuitants will be paying at least as much tax as they get in NZ Super?

    It is not only the cost of super Pete George, it is the cost of health care on top of that. But even with all the money in the world to pay for that there is the logistical problem of who will actually be the Doctors, Nurses, Caregivers who will be looking after these people – let alone the people who keep the electricity flowing through the wires, the roads navigable and the cows milked.

    And the sort of people, like my kids and their cousins, who would be doing this are leaving and raising their families elsewhere leaving behind the children of those who hang their kids from clotheslines to pick up the pieces.

    Hate to be a Jeremiah old chum – This should have been addressed twenty years ago but the politicians keep kicking it into touch and distracting our attention by doing things like imposing gay marriage on us

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

    Andrei;

    Will you be switching to the other side and indulging in sodomy once gay marriage is legalised?

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

    I wanna know why you all want to keep discriminating against those migrants who arrive here and want to take multiple wives as is customary in their culture. THEY ARE CONSENTING ADULTS!

    Fucking bigots, the lot of ya!

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

    Aredhel777 (196) Says:
    August 28th, 2012 at 4:43 pm

    “For starter it’s the similar arguments for the same kind of people (religious and social conservatives)”

    No, the reasoning is completely different, as I have just explained. Interracial marriage was frowned upon because black people were seen as biologically inferior to white people, and therefore if the two marriages were to intermarry it would create biologically inferior children. This is a completely different reasoning to those who argue that gay marriage should not be permitted because men and women complement each other leading to more stable relationships (and therefore unions between gays are less stable), who point out that gay relationships are far less likely to be monogamous, that STIs are far more common amongst the LGBT community, that two people of the same sex cannot reproduce, that if gays were to adopt this would adversely affect their children, and so forth.

    So what you are saying is gay couples are inferior to straight couples and therefore shouldn’t marry, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. SGA (1,266 comments) says:

    Andrei @4:16 “People who opposed inter racial marriage did so because the believed the mixed race offspring that would result would lead to a degeneration of their society.”

    Andrei @3:05 “It is not going to harm me per se Pete George. I am not thinking for myself here but for those to come, including my own children.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. davidp (3,585 comments) says:

    I’ve read the comments in this thread and I’ve decided that Christians scare me. The thought of Christians boinking each other and creating little Christians scares me even more. It’s just not natural. The thought of them praying together and then hopping in to bed and banging away like bunnies makes me feel icky.

    Maybe an MP could move an amendment to make it illegal for Christians to marry each other? It’d still be legal for Christians to marry non-Christians tho.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Fletch (6,529 comments) says:

    Top lawyer says marriage celebrants who refuse same sex marriages could be acting illegally if same sex marriages are legalised (audio)

    Top lawyer Grant Illingworth QC tells RadioLIVE’s Marcus Lush says that a law change legalising same sex marriages would mean marriage celebrants would be breaking the law if they refuse to marry same sex couples on religious grounds. 28 August, 2012

    Click through to listen to audio –

    http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Top-lawyer-says-marriage-celebrants-who-refuse-same-sex-marriages-could-be-acting-illegally-if-same-sex-marriages-are-legalised/tabid/506/articleID/30297/Default.aspx

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

    Because, Fletch, they are performing a STATUTORY CIVIL ceremony and not a religious ceremony. They’d equally be infringing the Human Rights Act if they refused to perform marriages involving Asians, or people in wheelchairs, or Christians, or National Party members.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Fletch (6,529 comments) says:

    Marcus Lush – Grant, the Human Rights Commission has stated an opposing view, saying that religious officials would be free to refuse to perform same-sex marriages because of personal beliefs. You don’t believe that view is right?

    Grant Illingworth QC – No, I’ve looked at the basis upon which they say that; they refer to section 27 of the Marriage Act, which makes it clear that a marriage celebrant is not obliged to perform marriage ceremonies in particular cases; in other words, they don’t have to perform every marriage ceremony that they’re asked to do. But that overlooks the fact that anti-discrimination laws make it an offence to refuse to offer a service on a prohibited (prohibitive?) ground, and I don’t think that their argument hangs together.

    According to the interview, this would apply to caterers and florist et al, as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Sofia (858 comments) says:

    Fletch – MP Wall says her bill will allow ministers of religion to choose not to conduct same sex marriages if that is against their beliefs. I guess tomorrow evening we will have the wording to decide if Grant Illingworth QC is corrcet or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. orewa1 (410 comments) says:

    I accept gay people as equal, but not as “the same.” Gays have civil union; straights have marriage. Vive la difference!

    Nothing needs to change.

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

    Fletch,

    I guess you (and Illingworth – on the face of it) are just being disingenuous. The HRC were clear in this – if it is a product or service provided for a fee then the law against discrimination will apply. If the product or service is not provided for a fee, then they will not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Fletch (6,529 comments) says:

    Quite a good little Herald rollover graphic which shows who supports and who does not support gay marriage in parliament and their numbers –

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10830022

    There is also an online poll on the site. Interesting to see that the number who support gay marriage is only marginally more than against by 58% (for) to 40% (against), with 2% undecided.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. wat dabney (3,849 comments) says:

    rewa1,

    How ’bout gays get marriage and straights get civil unions. Would that also be okay?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Reid (16,716 comments) says:

    1 – Most New Zealanders support marriage equality
    2 – Most National supporters support marriage equality
    3 – Swinging voters most strongly support marriage equality

    Interesting that on this thread about the politics of gay marriage that the allegation that it’s about equality isn’t challenged at all.

    Which is BTW the precise argument feminists use all the time when they argue that women should do this or that or the other and to allege they shouldn’t is “discwimination.”

    Strange how it never occurs to any of those advocating the end to this [fill in the blank – wedge politics anyone?] “discwimination” to question it. For what is the “discwimination?” I’ve asked and asked and asked all through this Kiwiblog debate and NOT ONCE has anyone ever been able to tell me. Not once. Civil unions cover’s gay rights. Completely. And no-one has refuted that. Ever. Not once. Ever. I repeat. Never refuted.

    Because men and women are different, aren’t we. For example, women are great communicators. Why? Because their natural role is to pass on language and culture to their offspring. That’s in their DNA. That’s how human’s work, biologically. Feminists of course never bring that up. But even women who are dedicated to their “career” couldn’t give a stuff about it compared to their children, if they have them. All that oxytosin, you see. And yet what has society allowed feminists to wrought in today’s society, in the name of fighting “discwimination?” Why, lots of women, who would love to be at home raising their children in a heartbeat, if only it were practical but it’s not, because they are the breadwinners (often because and only because of their superior communication skills which are the key to corporate success), while their lesser-earning husbands stay at home and raise the kids. Sub-optimal for the course of civilisation – for the women, the men, the children? You bet. (I won’t bother detailed what it is the men are missing out on by this role reversal. Most people would simply misunderstand and accuse me of “discwiminating.”

    Feminists have successfully emplaced the meme within society that recognising differences is “discwimination.” They’re doing it again, now with this issue.

    A few astute people above have recognised this and to those few and you know who you are, congratulations. The rest of you people who see this as yet another battle, nay victowy in the field of human wights, it’s a shame and while as previously explained my personal opposition to this has nothing to do with religion, Luke 23:34 comes to mind here with respect to all of you proponents:

    Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment and cast lots.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. orewa1 (410 comments) says:

    Wat:

    Straights created marriage, gays created civil union. Each to their own.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Fletch (6,529 comments) says:

    wat, it’s the straight liberal progressives pushing for gay marriage anyway, not the gays themselves. It is being foisted on them in the name of kindness, but it’s really just to progress their liberal agenda. They couldn’t give two tosses about gays getting married.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. wat dabney (3,849 comments) says:

    Perhaps this will also help

    And he shall bring the bullock unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD; and shall lay his hand upon the bullock’s head, and kill the bullock before the LORD.
    And the priest that is anointed shall take of the bullock’s blood, and bring it to the tabernacle of the congregation: And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the LORD, before the vail of the sanctuary.
    And the priest shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the LORD, which is in the tabernacle of the congregation; and shall pour all the blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
    And he shall take off from it all the fat of the bullock for the sin offering; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards,
    And the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away,
    As it was taken off from the bullock of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall burn them upon the altar of the burnt offering. And the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and his inwards, and his dung, Even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him on the wood with fire: where the ashes are poured out shall he be burnt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Fletch (6,529 comments) says:

    “The Church is the best friend of homosexuals, both because she tells them they are made in God’s image and have intrinsic dignity and rights and are called to be Saints and because she is the only social force left that insists on moral absolutes — so when they sin against themselves she says NO, just as she does to heterosexuals who sin against themselves sexually, but when others sin against them she says NO also. No one else dares to say NO. She speaks up for everyone, including homosexuals…

    If the truth is now whatever we will, then just as there is nothing to stop society today from redefining marriage, there is nothing to stop it tomorrow from redefining personal dignity and rights so as to take them away from homosexuals. The Nazis did exactly that” – Dr. Peter Kreeft

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Fletch (6,529 comments) says:

    wat, do you know what that reading means? It’s significance to Christians.

    The Jewish High Priest used to put the sins of the people on a bull or calf and sacrifice it on their behalf – that’s where we get the term “sacrificial lamb”, or offering. When Jesus came, HE became the sacrifice, once and for all. Taking the sins of the whole human race upon himself to be tortured and slain in our place. That is where the term “Lamb of God” comes from.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Pete George (23,830 comments) says:

    I wanna know why you all want to keep discriminating against those migrants who arrive here and want to take multiple wives as is customary in their culture

    I don’t know how many immigrants we have from Utah, but I haven’t seen any asking for law changes allowing them to have multiple wives, so I think this is a non-issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. wat dabney (3,849 comments) says:

    Fletch,

    This is the magical pixie called Yahweh demanding animal sacrifices and special ways of splashing the blood around.

    For absolutely no reason at all.

    And people who go along with this utter claptrap are here solemnising about other people’s lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Lovin’ Bob McCrostie, gets 1% maybe of the population on a petition and then goes on the radio saying a large proportion of the NZ public don’t want gay marriage.

    Bob, I got 15 % for school cert maths and even I know 1 % is not quite enough to be going to the media with

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. gump (1,684 comments) says:

    SGA said:

    Andrei @4:16 “People who opposed inter racial marriage did so because the believed the mixed race offspring that would result would lead to a degeneration of their society.”

    Andrei @3:05 “It is not going to harm me per se Pete George. I am not thinking for myself here but for those to come, including my own children.”

    ——————————-

    I thought this was well worth posting again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Fletch (6,529 comments) says:

    Bob, I got 15 % for school cert maths and even I know 1 % is not quite enough to be going to the media with

    It is when the number of people the bill actually targets are only 1-2% of the population to begin with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Johnboy (17,051 comments) says:

    50,000 signatures in a month (without parliamentary funds at your disposal. :) ) is not too bad Eastbay!

    And I should know because I got 50% more than you at school cert maths. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    @ Andrei 3.05 .I am not thinking for myself here but for those to come, including my own children.”

    Perhaps a bit less thinking and a few more deep breaths.

    Anyway this bill will be voted through to the next stage tomorrow and we can all have a break from teasing Andrei whose is starting to unravel but I’ve had many good hard laughs, cheers

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    so you got 22 % JB , you great big noter you

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Johnboy (17,051 comments) says:

    Ah only 21% actually EB. I went for the highest common denominator whatever the fuck that is! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Yvette (2,763 comments) says:

    Denominators may not be able to conduct marriages if this bill goes through.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Johnboy (17,051 comments) says:

    The gummint would appoint enumerators to do the job if the denominators refused Yvette. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Yvette (2,763 comments) says:

    Denominator is the one on the bottom, Johnboy, while the dominator is usually on top.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Griff (8,419 comments) says:

    Multiple wifes thats sounds like a short trip to a early grave most find one to be more than enough to cope with I am sure that a most woman would find the prospect of multiple husbands just as horrifying
    Who cares if you want six wives or ten co husbands the fundies just don’t seem to get that other peoples living arrangements are none of their business

    and fletch
    ” HE became the sacrifice”
    I could never work out why bejesus running back to daddy god was a sacrifice unless there is some thing you godfreaks are not telling us

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Johnboy (17,051 comments) says:

    Middle arsed denominators are taking my fancy on the other thread at present Yvette. I always scored highly in biology. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Yvette (2,763 comments) says:

    21% was good for maths, Johnboy.
    I got 4% for Latin.
    Mind you, in the same Latin exam, the guy next to me wrote two whole sides of A4 and got 2%. He is probably a politician somewhere now – considering if gays should be allowed to marry or if kids of 18 years can buy booze. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Johnboy (17,051 comments) says:

    Or a Cardinal waiting for Benedict to die so he can get to be head condemner of the sinners Yvette.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Yvette (2,763 comments) says:

    Griff – ” HE became the sacrifice”

    Jesus didn’t write one word in the New testament, but it does indicate he abhorred sacrifice, so much so that for him to become THE sacrifice is an irony of truly Biblical proportion – Paul, who only ever met Jesus when he was ‘Saul’ with the arresting Temple guards, wrote all that krap about him being sacrifice ‘for us all”.
    Read between the lines like Reid

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. wat dabney (3,849 comments) says:

    HE became the sacrifice

    Which of course makes no sense at all, because an animal sacrifice makes no sense at all.

    Imagine if Yahweh had told people to stand on one leg, face North and fart the Marseillaise instead of killing an animal and flicking its blood around. Because one makes just as much sense as the other.

    Had that been the case, pious Christians would today solemnly be explaining how, 2000 years ago, Jesus selflessly stood on one leg, faced North and farted the Marseillaise for our sins.

    (Where “sin” = mixing different types of fiber in the same weave)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Fletch (6,529 comments) says:

    I could never work out why bejesus running back to daddy god was a sacrifice unless there is some thing you godfreaks are not telling us

    griff, we ALL return to God to be judged, no matter who. It all depends on the manner of death I would say. To willingly sacrifice your life for the good of another – and not in a painless way. To suffer the most cruel torture imaginable.

    If you yourself had committed a crime (say) in Asia (eg, drug smuggling) and were to suffer lashes, a life in jail, followed by death in one of the most painful ways possible and a stranger offered to take your place and you could fly back to NZ without any consequences, including a blemish-free record, wouldn’t that mean something?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Johnboy (17,051 comments) says:

    The French do that for us wat every time their northern neighbour dons its pickelhaube. :)

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

    “I don’t know how many immigrants we have from Utah, but I haven’t seen any asking for law changes allowing them to have multiple wives, so I think this is a non-issue.”

    So PG, the immigrants from all over the middle east, central Asia, Africa, etc are free to discriminate against?

    Hypocrisy and bigotry abound.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Fletch (6,529 comments) says:

    Jesus didn’t write one word in the New testament, but it does indicate he abhorred sacrifice, so much so that for him to become THE sacrifice is an irony of truly Biblical proportion

    Read your Bible again –

    “It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, 27and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. wat dabney (3,849 comments) says:

    If you yourself had committed a crime (say) in Asia (eg, drug smuggling) and were to suffer lashes, a life in jail, followed by death in one of the most painful ways possible and a stranger offered to take your place and you could fly back to NZ without any consequences, including a blemish-free record, wouldn’t that mean something?

    Equally, if you hadn’t committed a crime it would be truly monstrous to be condemned to “to suffer lashes, a life in jail, followed by death in one of the most painful ways possible.”
    Unfortunately, according to the Christian belief system, that is precisely what their magic pixie has decided for everyone. And you are supposed to be pathetically grateful when you grovel and beg in fear and he gives a big sigh and says, ‘oh okay then, I’ll let you off. Which shows how utterly wonderful and brilliant I am.”

    Of course it doesn’t show anything of the sort. It shows that this particular deity is like Saddam Hussein.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. wat dabney (3,849 comments) says:

    Jesus didn’t write one word in the New testament, but it does indicate he abhorred sacrifice

    So the deity in this belief system both commands that people perform stupid animal sacrifices and at the same time abhors them. Brilliant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Yvette (2,763 comments) says:

    Matthew 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served … written decades after Paul letters

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

    I guess given the views on this page, some of the posters are poor, elderly and in a minority that opposes liberal rights.
    Makes sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. RandySavage (223 comments) says:

    Banks…what a maniac. The guy has the integrity of a phone sex line. Out to lunch and off the planet
    All you far right muppets should be proud of your man

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Reid (16,716 comments) says:

    Of course it doesn’t show anything of the sort. It shows that this particular deity is like Saddam Hussein.

    wat, imagine you are God. Perfect. Pure. The whitest white and then some since humans aren’t capable of imagining such.

    Imagine you loved these imperfect creatures called humans so much, you wanted to show them the way.

    So you sent your Son, your only Son, to live amongst these imperfect, vile, violent creatures. Simply because you loved them.

    And you saw your Son exercise his Spirit through His life, never sinning. Not once. (Sin BTW wat, includes thoughts. Your thought life is as important as what you do physically in the world, in fact your thoughts generate your actions.) And God’s Son never sinned. Not even once. Not one lustful thought. Not one hateful thought.

    Jesus of course was “connected” spiritually but he had all the human failings. He was the son of God but he was human too. How else do you think he was able to confound the most learned people of his time, at the age of twelve, in the temple, when he went missing and his father found him there, doing that? But that didn’t mean he has an easy time. Take Judas. Jesus knew that Judas would be the one to betray him. Yet he never, not once, said anything to his other disciples. The man he knew who would betray him, he, who had never sinned, never once, ever, told his other disciples that this man amongst them would send him to be tortured, excoriated and brutally murdered. And why didn’t he do that? Because he loved God more than he loved himself and he would rather die, than commit a sin against a fellow man. For betraying Judas to the other disciples would have been a sin against Judas.

    You think wat about those you have argued and disputed with in your life. Imagine you, having the fortitude never, ever, to dispute against those, no matter what they did. No matter whether their allegations against you had substance or not.

    That was the example Fletch was pointing to.

    And the fact Jesus never did that, is why he serves as a portal to the rest of us, who aren’t as good as he, to approach God. For sin provokes God wat. And unless we can pass through that portal Jesus established, we can never approach God.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. RandySavage (223 comments) says:

    garbage. Ive read better theories on public restroom walls
    And they were written in shit

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Johnboy (17,051 comments) says:

    My goodness what a breathe of fresh air you bring to this forum Randy.

    And so forceful too. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Yvette (2,763 comments) says:

    Reid – Take Judas. Jesus knew that Judas would be the one to betray him. Yet he never, not once, said anything to his other disciples. The man he knew who would betray him, he, who had never sinned, never once, ever, told his other disciples …

    No?
    Matthew 26:20-25, Mark 14:17-21 and Luke 22:14, 21-23
    … he said, ‘Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me.’ And they became greatly distressed and began to say to him one after another, ‘Surely not I, Lord?’ He answered, ‘The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me

    Then he urged Judas to do what had been arranged

    Not that this seems to have anything to do with same sex marriage

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Reid (16,716 comments) says:

    But Yvette, even at the final hour he never told them who it was. All of them had dipped their hand into the bowl with him.

    I agree it doesn’t have anything to do with feminist activism, but when someone raises their ignorance, I feel compelled to strike it down. That’s just me.

    garbage. Ive read better theories on public restroom walls,

    That’s simply what the Bible says Randy. Shame you don’t like it and additionally think it’s a theory, but that’s your problem mate. Educate yourself.

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

    For those of you debating various parts of the bible, it would pay to remember that for most of us, it’s a work of fiction, not law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Griff (8,419 comments) says:

    fuck you still dont get it bejesus goes home to daddy haven and all that crap. Dieing in a few days only to receive a guaranteed seat in haven or hanging around in reids foul earth for another forty years then dieing anyway give me option one any day especially if you get to have a go with some of goat boys spare virgins while you are up there.why do you think towel heads blow them selfs up The logic in your so called supreme sacrifice totally fails to exist. if it did there would not be suicide bombers.
    To say he made some sort of sacrifice over and above wot the other thirty thousand or so jews put to the cross during the roman occupation flies in the face of known history killing another jew would have been just another days work for the legions To say that he did it for some altruistic reason is frankly absurd he got done for sedation against the roman empire and died for the crime.
    Christianity some terrorist gets executed by the roman empire and they worship him for it for the next 2000 years Mad as meat axes all of them

    does any of the rubbish published on here by the godsquad have any bearing on same sex marriage

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

    I dunno, the legend of Sodom and Gommorah was pretty straight up about this issue. While the “hero” of the story, “Lot” was having intercourse with his 2 daughters, the sin of gay sex was going on outside his cave. This is why god destroyed the town.
    Lot didn’t mind too much, his daughters were getting him drunk and riding him like a pony. But this isn’t sinful in the eyes of our dear conservative friends.

    Guess what? I have a maths riddle for you too – and have answered it in case you didn’t add it up right.

    100% = the percentage of peoples lives destroyed by allowing gays to choose to marry.
    0 = the amount of fucks I give to people expressing their religious opinions about what will not affect them

    Chuck, will you be burning your ACT membership card? I want to find the person who even allowed you to join the party and give them a slap. You fitting inside ACT is like Helen Clark being the frontman for the Beastie Boys.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. wreck1080 (3,999 comments) says:

    It is reported that any priest refusing to marry gay people will be thrown in jail for discrimination.

    Ha ha, this gets better and better.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Pete George (23,830 comments) says:

    It is reported that any priest refusing to marry gay people will be thrown in jail for discrimination.

    Like employers can be thrown into jail for discrimination?

    If a priest doesn’t want to marry someone they just say they don’t want to. Which they already do.

    And who would want to get married by someone who hates their lifestyle? It’s normal now for people to choose a priest, minister or celebrant that they like and is comfortable with marrying them.

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

    its not just that Pete
    If the church refuses to let a sane gender couple use their facility with their own celebrant the activists will get the Human rights council involved.

    I hope when it happens you and the rest of you apologize here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Chuck Bird (4,909 comments) says:

    “I want to find the person who even allowed you to join the party and give them a slap.”

    Rodney did, he even answered my question at a Family First meeting two months before the 2008 election. I quote just part of what he said, “A far a MPs go we are not special and I think that the idea of a referendum on moral or conscience issues is a very, very good idea”.

    He either did another flip flop on this issue or said what he thought would get him votes as well a free workers. I would not have rejoined ACT if he stated his current opinion on a Voters Veto.

    I have the full audio if anyone is in interested.

    I will stick to lobbying and not join any political party especially after John Banks flip flop. There are very few MPs in any party who will not do whatever is required to stay in power. This particularly applies to party leaders. And these are the people who are supposted to have a superior conscience that us mere peasnts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Chuck Bird (4,909 comments) says:

    “A far a MPs go we are not special and I think that the idea of a referendum on moral or conscience issues is a very, very good idea”.

    Should be

    “As far a MPs go we are not special and I think that the idea of a referendum on moral or conscience issues is a very, very good idea”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. frankflintstone (68 comments) says:

    this is going to be discriminatory against gay people because it doesn’t allow 3 of them to marry – that’s not marriage equality

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. frankflintstone (68 comments) says:

    Brazil is ahead of us. “We are only recognising what has always existed. We are not inventing anything.”

    This isn’t referring to a gay marriage but a 3 person civil union

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-19402508

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. MH (830 comments) says:

    What with Global warming,sea levels rising and maori proprietal rights…..it just seems a waste of time to draw a line in the sand over this issue anymore.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. scott.stevens (3 comments) says:

    @ East Wellington Superhero (1,007) Says:
    August 28th, 2012 at 12:51 pm
    “C’mon, this Nazi thing is popular. Everyone seems to support it. You don’t want to be on the wrong side of history.”

    Obviously SSM marriage is nothing compared to Nazi Germany. My point is that popularity is not the strongest argument for supporting something.

    Hitler and the Nazi party never received a mandate from the German public.

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

    The wrong side of history argument assumes that trends western liberal democracies are the trends of history. It discounts for example the rise of Christianity in africa or the worldwide rise of Islam alongside shrinking populations in western secular democracies. It also ignores the demographic that conservative churches tend to be growing and liberal ones shrinking.

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